Oh no! The DRAFT is back!

[test]

I guess somewhere is stated that the draft board can start operations in as little as 90 days after given notice so I think something "has to happen" at least 90 days before June 2005, so that means March/April something may happen (a la 911) that triggers the call for the draft.

[Jerseee]

maybe this will help...

"Conscientious objector"

do your research.

[Icesgirl]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

maybe this will help...

"Conscientious objector"

do your research.

http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.
HOW TO APPLY
In general, once a man gets a notice that he has been found qualified for military service, he has the opportunity to make a claim for classification as a conscientious objector (CO). A registrant making a claim for Conscientious Objection is required to appear before his local board to explain his beliefs.

He may provide written documentation or include personal appearances by people he knows who can attest to his claims. His written statement might explain:

• how he arrived at his beliefs; and
• the influence his beliefs have had on how he lives his life.

The local board will decide whether to grant or deny a CO classification based on the evidence a registrant has presented.

A man may appeal a Local Board's decision to a Selective Service District Appeal Board. If the Appeal Board also denies his claim, but the vote is not unanimous, he may further appeal the decision to the National Appeal Board. See also Classifications.

WHO QUALIFIES?
Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.

SERVICE AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
Two types of service are available to conscientious objectors, and the type assigned is determined by the individual's specific beliefs. The person who is opposed to any form of military service will be assigned to Alternative Service - described below. The person whose beliefs allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Conscientious Objectors opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of Alternative Service are jobs in:

• conservation
• caring for the very young or very old
• education
• health care

Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man would have served in the military, usually 24 months.

[test]

This link could be in other posts as well (like the pissed off one http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=2285) but I put it here:

http://rense.com/general63/cadn.htm

Another reason not to use the public school system.

[weishaupt1776]

Well .....
My Dad is a Vietnam Vet, and I talk to another Vet from time to time (Joe)

Joe, as a very active vet with numerous vet organizations, tells me it's like this:

When there is a republican seated office/cabinet/etc . . there is more aggression in the services during war time because the soldiers are all trained and focused on the mission getting drawn into the machine farther and farther each day on the battlefield

When there are more democrats in majority, they institute drafts in order to bring in people to "neutralize" the aggression by them introducing an objective voice from outside the War Machine

He claims that's how we pulled out of Nam

[idknow]

Every word must be examined and given effect,
every phrase must be understood,
every thing must be vetted by wisdom to understand
the intention of the Legislature.

``obligation''-o-bla-da must be recognised as a keyword in Lex contract-us heh

let us refuse to gloss over the pretty painting and shaping of the drawings that are called writing.

your anointed brother idknow

P. S. i think we're missing the boat on examining Contract Law, I think we really need to incorporate that Lex in to this forum too.

--

Originally Posted by suijuris

I have seen a few articles recently claiming the draft could be back soon, and it has some people are running around scared.


So I went to the source, the U.S. Congress

[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...p;summ2=m&
|/bss/d108query.html"]

[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...p;summ2=m&
|/bss/d108query.html]

and this is the information they have on the bill:
--
SUMMARY AS OF: 1/7/2003--Introduced.

Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense.

--

Ok, quiz time.

Let's assume you are an able-bodied, non-conscientious objector, between the age of 18 and 26. Since this act applies to both sexes, it does not appear that being a woman makes any difference. Let's also assume that this Act is enacted by Congress.

Question:
List two or more reasons why this Act does not apply to YOU.

Have fun,
Sui Juris

[Shoonra]

I know a bit about the law on enlistment and conscription.

Enlistment - volunteering for the armed forces - is the only method for populating the current Volunteer Army. The last draftee left in the Army -- after his obligatory term he repeatedly re-enlisted -- retired from the Army earlier this year.

Enlistment does involve a contract, a written contract titled imaginatively the Contract of Enlistment. Something to keep in mind: Legally, the only things the Army (or Navy or whatever) promises to the enlistee is what's actually written in that contract. Nothing more. Whatever the recruiting officer promised, even in writing, counts for absolutely nothing. The contract even says as much. There have been several court cases of enlistees suing, mostly trying to get out of the Army altogether, because the recruiter promised them specialized technical training & experience, and instead they wound up as mere grunts trained to do nothing more than march and peel potatos. And the courts have pointed to the provision in the contract that says, very plainly, that the Army promises nothing that isn't within the four corners of that one written contract, and nothing else matters. Vritually the only thing promised by the Army in the contract is bad food and bad weather.
On the other hand, the enlistee promises to do whatever he's ordered to do.

Conscription - better known as the draft - does not depend on a contract and it isn't limited to citizens. It covers every able-bodied male who is either a US citizen (no matter where he is) or a non-citizen who is inside the US. Non-citizens unwilling to be conscripted are cordially invited to go to another country.

Not every able-bodied young man is all that eager to answer the call. During the worst part of the Civil War, in July 1863, there were riots against the draft in NYC - including instances of draft officers getting shot when they showed up at someone's door, and the juries refusing to convict!

However , legal challenges to conscription have very seldom worked. The courts have already repeatedly rejected arguments about involuntary servitude. Even the exemption allowed for Conscientious Objection is fairly narrow. Among methods used during Vietnam that sometimes worked were current enrollment in college or graduate school (late in the Vietnam War the draft boards weren't satisfied with mere enrollment and wanted proof of good grades, actual employment as a clergymen - even in a church that supported the war (but this means a real congregation and a real paycheck for being a minister), and sometimes go so far as to damage their bodies - acquire a dangerous disease, lop off a finger, put a rude tattoo where it would be visible, etc. All things considered, sometimes these young men did themselves more trouble than a stint in the Army would have done them, considering that even during Vietnam most soldiers weren't sent into combat.
And, of course, some young men fled the country, either evading the draft or deserting the Army, which made them fugitives from the law, and going to countries like Canada and Sweden (and having to stay there).

Before Vietnam the Army did distinguish between enlistees and draftees. Enlistees got service numbers that ended in RA (Regular Army) and draftees got numbers ending in US, so it was always known who wanted to be there. There was even a period where, to encourage volunteers, the hitch for enlistees was shorter than for draftees. By the end of Vietnam most of these distinctions ceased.

There are, of course, some veterans' benefits for anyone who served honorably, either draftee or enlistee. Some people are very glad to have these benefits.

I doubt that the draft will be re-instated any time soon. Remember back in 1980, in Jimmy Carter's acceptance speech for his re-election effort; Carter mentioned the mere possibility of a draft to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and some of the Democratic convention audience started booing. Very bad sign for a candidate, being booed at his own nominating convention. If the Republicans even breathe a word hinting at reinstating conscription, the Dems will win the next election in a walk.

However, BOTTOM LINE, the law still requires young men to register for the Selective Service System, just so something is ready if the draft ever returns. Non-registration is, itself, a crime even without an actual draft. And if there's a draft, then draft evasion is a serious crime. It won't be you doing the time; it'll be your teenage son. Think hard before you land your kid in hot water just to use your odd arguments that courts have already rejected.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

However, BOTTOM LINE, the law still requires young men to register for the Selective Service System, just so something is ready if the draft ever returns. Non-registration is, itself, a crime even without an actual draft.

Is this for all young men, or just US citizens? ;););)



Henry Franklin

[BOBT12]

Where does the Constitution require or support a "DRAFT"?

As for me and my house, I will not support unjust killing, whether it is required by Charles Manson or President Bush.

[Shoonra]

The govt has the authority to impose a draft under the Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8, clauses 11-16, esp clause 12, "to raise and support armies".

The draft registration law applies to all young men - including US citizens living abroad and non-citizen living in the US. The requirement to register applies even if it is obvious that the young man would be found unfit for service.

So far, the draft laws have survived legal challenges based on gender discrimination. It may well be that in the future the registration laws - and possibly the draft itself - will apply also to young women.