Talk:Selective Service System

message: This section is not clearly written.  I assume Congress will set new and different procedures if they deem a future draftr is necessary.  When were the procedures mentioned in place?  World War II, World War I, the Cold War conflicts, or all of the above?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedow (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [edit] Mobilization (draft) procedures

message: What is the punishment for refusing a draft notice? not mentioned anywhere in the article from what I could see.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.35.250 (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in the day, the maximum punishment for draft dodging was the firing squad. However we have not had a draft in to long to consider that a reliable yardstick, and we really wont know until a new draft is implemented. --Brian95620 (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Punishment

message: Why is it called this? It appears there is nothing selective about it.
Ali0th (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is it called 'selective service'?

message: How should obsolete draft codes be handled?  For example, I wanted to remind myself of what 1-Y was, but found it missing.  From a random article I was reminded:
1-Y Qualified for military service only in time of national emergency (classification eliminated 10-Dec-1971) Mulp 09:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsolete codes

message: Removed entirely the statement that non-registration was at 13% by 1984. A reference to a Mennonite web page was given with it but had no support for it. Moved that ref up. Anybody who was an adult in the country in question at that time knows that that would probably be high for the compliance rate. Lycurgus 16:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize I'm replying to a talk article from a year ago, but this does bring up an interesting idea.  I agree that the revert done by Lycurgus was correct and the data was not properly sourced. However, perhaps a short table showing compliance rates by year would be of interest.  Some the data is online at the SSS site.  Anyway, just a thought. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1984

message: I have a friend whom was not born in the United States whom was unaware of the requirements to register for the SSS. Is anyone aware if there are any notices or if anyone advises immigrants of the requirement to register for the SSS? I was told of the requirement from my parents, but his family not being from the United States was unaware and did not advise him.
209.6.216.215 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreigners Comment

message: Living in a country under a government that issues social security numbers, I really don't understand the need for 'Selective Service' at all. Not that the US wouldn't conceivably require a draft, it would just seem that the government should 'know' who is eligible to be drafted simply by social security records ie. you are automatically 'registered' for the draft at birth. Same goes for the census, you would think the government would already know where the citizens are living.
The government would only know where someone was living based on their social security number if and when the person files an annual tax return. Not everyone is required to file an annual tax return, such as if your annual income is very low or zero. Quacks Like a Duck 14:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for Selective Service/Census

message: Does any serious person or group contend that the draft is equivalent to slavery or involuntary servitude under the 13th Amendment?  Especially given that, as the article points out, the Supreme Court has ruled on that exact point?  This sounds like one of these crackpot theories like that the income tax is illegal or that fringes on a flag make a court a military court. --Max power 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats an interesting comparison--mandatory actions against men only.  I might look into it. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Legal Issues"

message: I wonder if there should be some mention of the proposed (but not implemented) medical draft?  It seems to re-surface from time to time in the news. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it?Kernel.package (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This Times article has some information. Also, google 'Medical Draft' and you'll get a lot of info.  66.191.19.68 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical Draft?

message: The "Lottery Procedures" section says that number 366 is only used for lotteries held in a leap year. But the year a lottery is held has nothing to do with the date on which a person was born. Does that really mean that "leap babies" would be exempt unless the lottery was held in a leap year? Sounds pretty strange to me. 86.132.143.247 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how it works. But if you're conscripting people who are 20 years old (I presume this means on the day of conscription), then there is no point conscripting people born on a leap year unless it is the leap day (February 29th) 'til February 28th of the next year. By definition, there will be no people 20 years old born on a leap day except during that time. On the other hand it seems to me it will be simpler to just use 366 and worry about the other stuff later Nil Einne 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some info:  75.142.145.104 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Reading this again, one thing I neglected to consider is that I don't know if new numbers/lotteries are done if the draft is extended for 21 etc. If they aren't then the practice above would be problematic in non leap years as it would likely eventually exclude those born in the leap year. Also I neglected to consider the possibilities when a year is dividible by four but not a leap year (e.g. 2100) as in that case people born 20 years ago may have been born in a leap year even if it's not a leap year. In any case as I mentioned above it does seem simpler to either just draw the leap years as well and sort it out later (this would enable the same drawing to be used both for those born in leap years and those not born in leap years) or go by the the year  of birth of those you're drawing for. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Leap Year babies?

message: Perhaps directing people to another site is not the best form for an overview. Perhaps someone could fix that, if no one is interested, I could try putting something together. Sir LoseALot (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: why there are 2 dates in the infobox?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.27.168 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: formed dates

message: I wanted to confirm that Byron V. Pepitone was indeed Acting Director in 1972-3, so you can remove the question mark after his name in the list of directors.
rumjal 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: confirmation

message: Just wondering, since Carter didn't sign this until June 1980, was it a campaign move by him to weaken Reagan's "Build up the Military" stance?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.19.147 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A Campaign Bill?

message: About people who are "4-F", others who would be in a similar problem, what about police who will DEMAND that the person give the cop his/her "Draft card", sees this and makes a comment, even takes action indicating the 4-Fer is FAKING it?("You're 4-F?", then arrests that person for being a "Draft dodger", thinking the status is FAKE and the person is a criminal). Powerzilla (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reason I asked this question is that I had dealt with police who gave Viet Nam War era "draft dodgers" hell. IF the current war gets worse, the "draft" may be initiated. Powerzilla (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One is only classified 4-F after review of his medical condition by the SSS. It was perhaps possible for someone to "fake it", but also there were a variety of conditions that might result in a classification of 4-F, but would not be apparent without medical examination. My father was 4-F during WWII due to a back injury from his youth, but this injury had little if any effect on his day to day activity. To successfully prosecute someone with 4-F status as a draft dodger, you would have to prove that he had deliberately mislead the draft board and medical examiners about his condition. Wschart (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Were 4f required to perform alternative service like the conscience objectors were?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinrobin (talk • contribs) 04:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft and "Smart Ass Cops"

message: It appears that the requirement is that men be registered from the day they turn 18 until the day they turn 26 — do we generally call that "ages 18-25", "between 18 and 25", or "between 18 and 26"?  --Rob* (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.sss.gov/Fast%20Facts%20Table.htm — for reference.  --Rob* (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 25 or 26?

message: Footnote 2 appears to be a broken link. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote 2.

message: Just a thought;  rather than the lengthy conjecture and arguments about women and the draft, why not just keeping it to facts such as the pertinent statues and court rulings?--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Section regarding women

message: As it is, the majority of the 'Legal issues' section is argumentation and speculation regarding the law.  To keep this article encyclopedic, I think limiting the section to the relevant case law would be best.  Any objections to trimming this down?  Any other court cases (SCOTUS or otherwise) that we should cover beyond Butler v. Perry?  IIRC, there were some rulings in the WWI and Vietnam eras that might be noteworthy.  Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 05:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I engaged in some boldness and went ahead and updated the section.  I removed some of the speculation that, while interesting, wasn't particularly encyclopedic.  A couple of related court cases were also added with necessary citation. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal issues

message: This section begins - "Some registrants are not American citizens; they fall instead into one of the following categories:"
In detailing those categories, it says "Dual national: The person is a citizen of both the United States and another country at the same time." which is a clear contradiction of the leading sentence.
Not sure of the best way to fix this. Thoughts? Ian Page (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked-to page says "Alien or Dual National". --Spoon! (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the fix! --Ian Page (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in "Alien Registration" section 

message: Reference 4, "Proof of Registration & Change of Address" http://www.sss.gov/ack.htm is offline -- the url needs to be updated or changed to an Internet Archive url. Sadsaque (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now updated to its current page on the SSS website. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Selective Service System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sss.gov/LOTTER2.HTM
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sss.gov/lotter3.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sss.gov/lotter4.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090610131539/http://www.centeronconscience.org/home.shtml to http://www.centeronconscience.org/home.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080919181648/http://www.peaceabbey.org:80/confcenter/coregistry.htm to http://www.peaceabbey.org/confcenter/coregistry.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20020525075120/http://www.american.edu:80/dgolash/rostker.htm to http://www.american.edu/dgolash/rostker.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Selective Service System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727071105/http://www.sss.gov:80/FSbenefits.htm to http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section on the law proposed in the house this year says that this would do nothing about existing state laws denying people state benefits, however the selective service would no longer exist to actually verify that they had not registered, and in both the house and senate laws, there is a section that reads as follows.
c) Effect On Existing Sanctions.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person may not be denied a right, privilege, benefit, or employment position under Federal law on the grounds that the person failed to present himself for and submit to registration under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 3802), before the repeal of that Act by subsection (a).
Which makes it pretty clear that the law is well and truly intended to obliterate the selective service, and de-stigmatize the people who have opposed it.  If anyone thinks I'm missing anything, say so now, otherwise I will go through with that edit some time soon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.118.155.125 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Laws Proposed 

message: I was using a proxy and I thought this was my user page replication of the page, so I thought I was playing around with my user page. -Ethanbas (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Nobody should waste any time discussing an error that is easily corrected.  Smallchief (talk  10:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, glad this was resolved quickly, apologies for my reckless actions. -Ethanbas (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the first person who has ever made a mistake on Wikipedia. ;) Smallchief (talk  19:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  My apologies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Selective Service System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507211145/http://www.sss.gov/QUICK.HTM to http://www.sss.gov/QUICK.HTM
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pacshiprev.com/PacificArchivesSubDirectory/page31.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507213741/http://www.sss.gov/FSstateleg.htm to http://www.sss.gov/fsstateleg.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060405005624/http://peace.mennolink.org/safnr.html to http://peace.mennolink.org/safnr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Legal and anatomical women who used to be male are required to serve as men even if they have had male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. SSS and trans-women SSS doesn't allow any correction to sex.--2601:C4:C080:81C:551D:B868:C24D:135D (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. SSS is anti-trans because SSS doesn't allow correction to sex whereas the Social Security Administration, for example, does.--2601:C4:C080:81C:E50A:E85B:C057:3D2 (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-trans women policies of SSS 

message: This article states:
"...all male U.S. citizens between 18 and 25 (inclusive) years of age are required to register within 30 days of their 18th birthday."
Question:  How can a "25" year old meet the requirement to register "... within 30 days of their 18th birthday."
VinAcapuloPE (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Logic? 

message: I changed the text in the intro to clarify that the SSS requires people assigned male at birth to register in the system:
: All  U.S. citizens and immigrant non-citizens who are between the ages of 18 and 25  are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays...
I believe this wording is clearer because it more accurately reflects that the SSS determines who must register based on their gender assigned at birth, rather than other factors like the current gender on their ID.
 I'd like to understand why you reverted my edit, since you did not provide an explanation. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have not responded, I restored my edit. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 20:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Assigned male at birth" reverted 

message: — Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Public Policy