Is the Draft Constitutional?
Michael says no. I say yes, but Rangel’s still an idiot for supporting it. Nice to know that some things never change, and that after all these years the Democrats are still the party of slavery. More discussion here, including some analysis from famed legal scholar Ayn Rand.
UPDATE: Uncly-Wuncly joins the fray.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:32 pm
FYI, your rss feed at http://xrlq.com/feed/rss2/ is busted.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:13 pm
What do you mean by “busted?” It looks normal to me.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I mean bloglines gives me the big red X.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:47 pm
UnConstitutional? Be serious. Article 1, Section 8 gives the legislative branch the power “to raise and support armies” (for two years), and to provide and maintain a navy.
Where do these people think the army and navy is going to come from? Mail-order catalogs?
November 21st, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Feed came back, btw. Like 30 posts at once.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:05 am
“Where do these people think the army and navy is going to come from? Mail-order catalogs?”
They’re supposed to come from the State militias. Art. I, Sec. 8 does not necessarily imply a draft. Moreover, I think there is a seriously legal question as to whether or not the Thirteenth Amend. necessarily truncates any implied power of Congress to conscript troops.
And, yes, I realize I am the (extreme) minority view on this matter.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:34 am
If Art. I, Sec. 8 does not imply a draft, what does a power “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” imply, beyond a meaningless non-power to “call out” and ask people to join if they want to?
The Framers of the Constitution knew what a draft was. They also knew that the war powers under the original Constitution would be construed broadly – so broadly, in fact, that they felt the need for a Constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government from quartering soldiers’ in private homes in peacetime without their owners’ consent. It defies reason to suggest that they would have thought to prohibit something as quirky as that, while NOT having the foresight to explicitly prohibit the much more pervasive practice of conscription – had they actually intended that result.
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:26 pm
I think the draft has been necessary at some points in our nation’s history but presently we do not need the draft. Volunteer armies are much more successful than draft armies. Rangel is about to be disowned by the Democrats just like John Kerry was with his botched joke.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
What could possibly be unconstitutional about forced labor of non-convicts?