Conscription

Sorry for such a late reply. I got lost in all the festivities and almost forgot to rebut. Argument 1: Conscription is required to protect the national security of a country In the constitution of the United States of America, I would like to bring to light a couple of quotes from Article 1 Section 8: The Congress has the power to: "Declare War" "raise and support armies" "provide and maintain a Navy" And in Article 4 Section 8: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." These explicit quotes show that the United States government has the obligation and authority to create a military and use it to protect the national security of a nation. During the Civil War, the supreme court ruled in Kneedler vs Lane that the draft was constitutional. They said, by the provisions above, it is simply a contradiction to NOT allow conscription, because if conscription were deemed unconstitutional, how could a nation follow the constitution and "protect each of them [the states] against Invasion"? Ultimately, what makes Conscription constitutional is the fact that if it is needed due to a time of war, then a failure to conscript soldiers would result in the potential loss of a war, which would undermine the rights and freedoms of every citizen in the country. Furthermore, it would directly violate the abilities that are granted to the government by the Constitution. Argument 2: The Definition of Involuntary Servant: http://people.howstuffworks.com... Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. This is different from the SSS, as it is simply an insurance policy in case the man power of the active military is not enough to combat a war. Currently, the draft is not even active, as we are in a time of relative peace, and if the draft ever were to be reactivated, it would only be because we are in a war that extra man power would be needed to win. Draftees will still get military benefits, such as a military salary, housing accommodations, etc. and once the war is over, the men who are drafted are released from the military. While the draft is a form of legally required involuntary servitude, it does not mean that it is unconstitutional. For example, every US citizen working must pay taxes; that is also a form of legally required involuntary servitude, but it is constitutional for the same reason conscription is. It is stated in the constitution, and it is required for the government to be able to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Argument 3: Involuntary Servitude was coined to protect Black rights https://supreme.justia.com... Butler vs. Perry is another, more recent case, where the ruling in Kneedler vs Lane was upheld. It stated, and I quote: "The term involuntary servitude, as used in the Thirteenth Amendment, was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like results, and not to interdict enforcement of duties owed by individuals to the state. The great object of the Thirteenth Amendment was liberty under protection of effective government, and not destruction of the latter by depriving it of those essential powers which had always been properly exercised before its adoption." Rebuttal 1: Conscription is bad for education and the economy: http://people.howstuffworks.com... As shown previously, this discusses what kinds of people are immune to conscription. Any high school student with satisfactory academic performance is ineligible if they are under the age of 20, and any college student who is called for conscription can postpone it until the end of the semester, and college seniors can postpone it until graduation. I state that as evidence, but let me be clear: Conscription is very bad for education. I am just showing that the issue of education is addressed in the Conscription process. Just because it is bad for education does not make it unconstitutional, college tuition is also bad for education, but it is still legal and constitutional. As for the economy issue, I once again do not argue your point, but I find it irrelevant to the topic at hand. Conscription would only be revived during a time of war, which can potentially be FAR more detrimental to the economy if a nation is under-prepared. Secondly, while conscription is expensive, an expanded military calls upon more equipment and products to be mass produced, which actually counteracts the huge expenditure. Don"t forget, it was World War II that ended the Great Depression. http://www.forbes.com... Rebuttal 2: Conscription is tantamount to slavery: I think I addressed this rebuttal in some of my earlier arguments, but I will summarize for completeness. While it does involve people to work in life-threatening conditions, the soldiers are paid and given benefits making it completely different from involuntary servitude (in fact, including benefits such as housing, the average army solider makes about $99,000 a year). Although many of these soldiers may not want to be out fighting for their lives, it is a nation"s obligation to defend the homeland and win the war, in order to protect the freedoms of the citizens of a country.