quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by caneau:

quote:

Originally posted by JohnCourage:

quote:

Originally posted by olfuzzy:
“The average woman could conceivably be better suited physically for some of today’s combat positions than the average man, depending on which skills the position required. Combat roles no longer uniformly require sheer size or muscle,” Miller wrote, in the form of a declaratory judgment rather than an injunction.

It's not that women may be equally suited for some combat rolls. No, they would be even better. Also, does this mean the draft would remove gender as a consideration?

Set the same objective standards and move on. Women in combat roles won't be average. They'll be in the top percentiles of fitness, strength, and stamina. Make the cut, earn the badge.

Except that isn’t how it works now. There are different, lower, standards for women. Women are currently in combat roles. Meeting a lower standard.

Show me where this is true. From everything I've read, Ranger School and the USMC for combat roles has a unisex standard. And if it is true, this should be the focus.

Why do we still spend time/money to register anyone for “the draft”? Heck, the postage on sending out notices to 18 year olds alone ought to be worth the time, not to mention the savings from dismembering all the government jobs spent on keeping track of the data. We can’t keep track of aliens who overstay their visas, why bother with this? Another poster said it, the shit is really going to clog up the fan before we reinstitue the draft.

It’s not about equality in performance, it’s about equality in obligation.

Conscription is immoral and the entire world would be far better without it, but as long as it’s possible for men to be conscripted, then so should it be for women.

One of the great ironies about women being voluntary members of the armed forces or even performing jobs for the military as civilians during World War II were the complaints from wives and mothers. Why? Because every job that women performed in noncombat roles meant that a man was freed up to fight and thereby be endangered.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
Why do we still spend time/money to register anyone for “the draft”? Heck, the postage on sending out notices to 18 year olds alone ought to be worth the time, not to mention the savings from dismembering all the government jobs spent on keeping track of the data. We can’t keep track of aliens who overstay their visas, why bother with this? Another poster said it, the shit is really going to clog up the fan before we reinstitue the draft.

Speaking from personal experience: I enlisted in the army at age 17.(before draft registration was required). While in the army, stationed in Germany, some 11 years later, now age 28, I get an irate letter from my local draft board complaining that I had not registered for the draft. It was addressed to me, name, rank, SN, unit id, APO id. I wrote back, explaining that since I had enlisted at age 17 there was no need for me to register.

After several iterations, they threatened to press charges for failing to register, again sent to my military APO, with name etc etc.

After several iterations, I went to my 1st sgt, and told him I needed a 30 day admin leave. When I had explained, he laughed and said he would take care of it. Never heard from them again. I guess getting an irate letter from an E8 in a real live combat unit in Europe got their attention.

Even if you don't think women should be in combat duty, how can you oppose this ruling?

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I would like to see any "average" female in the military today that can match the average male.

"flak" jackets, helmets, ammo, other associated gear that adds up to quite a load. Then run a few hundred yards with all that load, and then be able to place aimed rounds on target.

Or do that in a location that is 6-7 thousand feet above sea level.

I would like to see the average female pick up a wounded man and carry him to safety and medical treatment.

I seem to recall some "testing" done some time ago to see how females compared to males in the program. Very few of them could get it done.

My grandson got blown up in an IED (member of special forces unit) and had to be carried to safety, treated, defended, and then evacuated.

Are there places in the military where women can compete with men? Of course, but full "equality" is not true.

Your truth does NOT matter. Only Lib/Left feelings matter.

quote:

Originally posted by rexles:
Personally, I feel ANY draft should be unconstitutional with out a declaration of war from congress.
No declared war NO draft.

There is nothing in the constitution that demands that. What is your theory?

Thirteenth Amendment:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

I raised this question with a retired law professor relative of mine, and it got him pretty well stirred up. He pointed out that conscription had a long history prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, and that seemed to be enough to ignore that provision of the Constitution. Sort of like claiming that because I owned guns before a ban, I could continue to own them regardless of what new laws were passed.

He did, however, also point out that the Supreme Court ruled that the Thirteenth didn’t refer to the involuntary servitude of being drafted into the armed forces and being required to serve involuntarily that way. I read and understood (I believe) the Court’s reasoning, and I also disagree with it, but they didn’t ask my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Thirteenth Amendment:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

I raised this question with a retired law professor relative of mine, and it got him pretty well stirred up. He pointed out that conscription had a long history prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, and that seemed to be enough to ignore that provision of the Constitution. Sort of like claiming that because I owned guns before a ban, I could continue to own them regardless of what new laws were passed.

He did, however, also point out that the Supreme Court ruled that the Thirteenth didn’t refer to the involuntary servitude of being drafted into the armed forces and being required to serve involuntarily that way. I read and understood (I believe) the Court’s reasoning, and I also disagree with it, but they didn’t ask my opinion.

Well, every right has limits and exceptions. A draft is a feature long-standing in American and English common-law, and while I haven't read the opinion about the draft and the 13th Amendment, I can easily imagine that the courts would find that military drafts are not slavery within the meaning of the 13th Amendment on the basis of the traditional understanding that governments have the power to draft. To abolish a draft would take a draft-specific enactment. It wouldn't even have to be a constitutional amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
... I can easily imagine that the courts would find that military drafts are not slavery within the meaning of the 13th Amendment on the basis of the traditional understanding that governments have the power to draft.

As I understand the ruling, because the Constitution gives the Congress the power to raise and maintain armies, it therefore has the power to draft soldiers for the purpose. The flaw I see in that theory (and again, no one asked my opinion) is that the power to raise armies isn’t the same as the power to compel service in them.

And lest anyone read any of this and conclude that I’m against defending the nation, I’ll point out that I enlisted and served 23 years in the Army, both my brothers enlisted and served (one retired), my father was a career soldier who enlisted prior to Pearl Harbor, my mother left home and worked as a shipyard welder in WW II, one grandfather enlisted and served in the Spanish-American War, and both great uncles served in WW I (one—the only draftee of that entire lot—was KIA). I do believe, however, that such service should be voluntary: If someone can’t convince me that doing something dangerous to protect him is a good idea, then he has no business expecting me to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by OMCHamlin:
Well, ya'll can be in favor of whatever you want, me? I'm in favor of the courts getting out of every single decision anyone makes, or has made, or is maybe thinking about making. The courts are who's running the country these days, and frankly, they are idiots...

Do you think that the judge was in the shower one morning and thought "I feel like making up some new laws today"?

A lawsuit was filed and ended up in front of him and he made a ruling on the constitutionality of the law which is sort of what we pay them to do. What would you have the judge do, not make a ruling on a case in his court because he doesn’t want to meddle?

It is difficult enough to see our sons go to war with all the risks that is entailed. Sending our daughters off to fight I do not think we are ready for. Decades ago when this sort of thing was being discussed, the feminists always said that it is not a problem being that there was currently no actual draft in effect at the time-just registration. If such a thing WERE to go through, how many daughters of feminists could we expect to see on the front lines? Unlike WW2 when many sons of the rich and famous did fight, I think we can expect lots of REMFs and in the case of politicians women in "combat zones" until the cameras quit rolling. I have heard that Al Gore actually had a "bodyguard" in Vietnam because his father was a US Senator; can anyone confirm this?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
... I can easily imagine that the courts would find that military drafts are not slavery within the meaning of the 13th Amendment on the basis of the traditional understanding that governments have the power to draft.

As I understand the ruling, because the Constitution gives the Congress the power to raise and maintain armies, it therefore has the power to draft soldiers for the purpose. The flaw I see in that theory (and again, no one asked my opinion) is that the power to raise armies isn’t the same as the power to compel service in them.

I got curious. The basis is twofold. The traditional government power in our Anglo-Saxon history to conscript is part of it, and the constitutional power to raise armies is part two. This is not surprising to me.

I understand your "moral" arguments, but I am not legally surprised this is the rule, nor am I surprised by the reasoning.

quote:

the power to raise armies isn’t the same as the power to compel service in them.

this is the same logical argument that the power to tax is not the same as the power to take your money

Just register and quit complaining.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:

quote:

the power to raise armies isn’t the same as the power to compel service in them.

this is the same logical argument that the power to tax is not the same as the power to take your money

Not really. Congress could be given the power to raise armies and have to do it with volunteers. The two don't necessarily go together. Now, in the Anglo-American tradition, government traditionally had the power to conscript, and the constitution was written with that historical reality in mind. It seems very likely that the founders wrote the power to raise armies into the document with the specific understanding that included conscription. I haven't done any historical research, but the fact that no seriously contested conscription until the 13th A is one hint. And, I'll bet you lunch that the historical research would show that conscription was intended as a power that was included in "raise armies."

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:

quote:

the power to raise armies isn’t the same as the power to compel service in them.

this is the same logical argument that the power to tax is not the same as the power to take your money

“Tax” is just a short word way of saying taking money by the government or other authority. I have never heard of a tax that didn’t involve the taking of something; without the taking, how could it be recognized as a tax?

Raising armies, however, does not necessarily mean conscription. Volunteer armies and parts of armies that were maintained by the nation were common throughout British and American history—including right now, for example. Although I agree with jhe888 that the framers of the Constitution probably believed that conscription was a legitimate power of government and probably thought it didn’t need to be spelled out in the document, it nevertheless isn’t.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
I think a certain judge in a certain Southern District of Texas has watched "Starship Troopers" one too many times...

Hahaha.

How do I learn more?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Even if you don't think women should be in combat duty, how can you oppose this ruling?

I can't. The principle established was that women are equal. If that is true, then they are equal in every application including this one. I don't think the principle is true. Women are not equal in every way just as men are not equal to women. They. Are. Different. IMO they do not belong in combat. Sorry. Not sorry.

I registered the day I turned 18. I was proud to do so. I hope there are some woman who will feel the same.