From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:02:31 GMT

In article <Bvzssz.Iqt@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>> In <Bvw67z.Fw0@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell):
>> >niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
 
>> >> It may have been "wrong" to avoid getting drafted, but it wasn't
>> >> illegal.  The draft is unconstitutional, and thus it cannot be illegal
>> >> to avoid it.
 
>> >Wrong, wrong, WRONG. 
 
>> >The draft has NEVER been ruled "unconstitutional", and has survived EVERY
>> >such challenge. it's a typical liberal rhetorical lie to claim that
>> >anything they don't like is "unconstitutional". 
 
>> Oh, but you see -- I was reading the Constitution, not some judicial
>> decisions.  

>> It's a typical conservative statist who ignores the constitution and 
>> lets activist judges write their own philosophies into law when it suits 
>> their purposes.  :)
 
>Good thing you put that smiley there; otherwise I'd have had to point out
>that activist judges reinterpreting things is a mainstay of liberalism. 

Reinterpreting things as being liberal?  Sure.  But *activism* has
nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism.

>> Seriously, though.  It's one thing to read between the lines and add to
>> what the Constitution says, but to directly ignore the text?

>> Let's try this again.

>> Amendment XIII:
>> Neither slavery NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, except as punishment for crime
>> whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
>> United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

>> (emphasis added)

>Just as the 8th Amendment in the Bill of Rights ("cruel and unusual
>punishment") can't be used to outlaw capital punishment because the
>writers of the Constitution WERE IN FAVOR OF AND USED capital punishment,

Yes it can.  If they had meant C&U to apply only to specific things,
they would have listed those things.  They *knew* standards of what was
C&U would change over time, and they *meant* for these new standards to
be applied.

>you can't really argue that the "involuntary servitude" clause rules out
>conscription, because they themselves used conscript soldiers. If they'd
>wanted to ban conscription, they'd have done so more plainly; they were

If you're going to nitpick about my syntax (below), I think I ought to
point out that these "they"s refer to different people.  The people who
wrote the 2nd and 8th amendments weren't the same people who wrote the 13th.

Furthermore, they *DID* do so plainly.  How much plainer can they make it?
I look at it the exact opposite -- if they wanted to exempt one form of
slavery from a complete ban, THEY have the burden to do so explicitly.

The fact that the writers of the amendment ignored it is NOT evidence
that they didn't mean it that way.  After all, Mr. Strict Constructionist 
himself, Thomas Jefferson, violated the constitution on at *least* two 
major occasions -- sending the marines to subdue the barbary pirates, and 
the Louisiana purchase.

(As an aside, I don't think that conscription *was* used in the near
future after the 13th amendment was adopted.  The next major war we had was
the Spanish American, 30 years later, and I don't believe the draft was in 
effect.)

>sure clear enough on other subjects, like the right to "keep and bear arms". 

Not clear enough.  There's a whole lot of people who don't think the 2nd
amendment is clear, including me.  They put in a clause that didn't have
any purpose at all, except to confuse the issue.

>> >Now, some means of avoiding the draft are legal. I, for example, avoided
>> >being drafted and sent to Viet Nam by the simple expedient of enlisting in
>> >the Navy and spending those years in the Atlantic. Joining the National
>> >Guard or the Coast Guard are also legal. Lying to the draft board, and
>> >swearing to join the Arkansas ROTC (and then welching on the promise!) are
>> >NOT legal, and show incredibly poor judgment for a man who only wanted to
>> >"maintain his political viability". 

>> He didn't *lie* to the draft board, unless you've got mind-reading
>> ability.  He said he was going to join ROTC, then changed his mind and
>> told them so.  No one has EVER suggested that what he did was illegal, 
>> either.

>And if I _do_ have mind-reading ability, then he _was_ lying? 

>(Sorry; I couldn't help myself.)

Sigh.  I *knew* when I was writing this that this might happen, but I
was too lazy to go back and change what I had typed.

>I'm suggesting that what he did was illegal. No, I'm coming right out and
>SAYING that it was illegal. In fact, I already DID. And I don't believe

Really?  Prove it.  (Not that you said it.  That it *was* illegal.)

>for a moment that he really intended to join ROTC and then "changed his
>mind", and if you really believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell
>you, CHEAP. 

The way he got out of ROTC was to put his name in for the draft.  If he
*had* gotten a low draft number, he would have had to serve or be in ROTC.

(Actually, I don't give a damn as to whether or not he joined/was
planning on joining ROTC.  Unless Bush/Quayle can *prove* he was really
a soldier in the North Vietnamese army, it's a non-issue to me.)

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"