From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:05:22 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

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. 



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




> >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.)


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
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. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu