THe 13th Admendment made it unconstitutional.
$
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here is an excellent article about conscription from
> Will Grigg.
>
> For life and liberty,
> David Macko
>
> William Norman Grigg, Senior Editor, The New American
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/birchblog/ Last Updated: Jan 14th, 2006 -
> 10:55:02
> Conscription Isn't "Service"-It's Slavery
> Fri, 13 Jan 2006, 15:18
> "It should be easy to end the fighting in Iraq," commented a close
and very
> beloved relative during a recent conversation. "We just need to send
enough
> troops over there to shut down the terrorists once and for all. Then
we'll
> be able to bring everybody home."
> "Where will those troops come from?" I queried. "We've sent the
bucket down
> the same well so many times it's drawing up sand. A lot of units are on
> their third rotation through Iraq, and recruitment shortfalls have
reached a
> crisis level. So your suggestion really doesn't seem to make sense."
> "Well, what we need to do is re-instate the draft," my relative
replied. "We
> should give everyone an opportunity to serve, and that way we'd have
enough
> manpower to finish the job in Iraq."
> "So - in order to bring `freedom' to Iraq, we should destroy it here at
> home?" I commented, with just a hint of asperity.
> "No, this wouldn't destroy freedom," protested my relative, a look of
> genuine puzzlement painting his features. "We'd just be giving every
young
> person a chance to serve his country."
> "There's a difference between serving your country, and being a
servant of
> the state," I responded, before the conversation dead-ended against the
> agree-to-disagree" barrier erected between us by tacit mutual consent.
> In our present circumstances, with military recruiters, desperate to
attract
> enlistees, making their pitch in every conceivable venue, there's no
way any
> American teenager could be deprived of a "chance" for military
service. The
> invitations are ubiquitous, and they're being largely ignored. What my
> relative was saying, in essence, is that youth should be compelled
to accept
> the "opportunity" to serve.
> Any American who does anything worthwhile is serving our country.
This is
> true of some, but not most, people who are employed by the
government. Given
> the size, expense, and invasiveness of our present regime, most of those
> referred to as "public servants" are engaged in what can be considered
> parasitism at best. The 18-year-old who stocks shelves at Wal-Mart,
or runs
> the fry station at a fast-food joint, is doing more to serve his country
> than an entire battalion of federal bureaucrats.
> Enlistment in the military is honorable and commendable. This is not
true of
> the uses to which our military is often put, as the ongoing
aggressive war
> against Iraq demonstrates. When those who have chosen to enlist are
employed
> to carry out missions that are unconstitutional and strategically
> counter-productive, they are not serving our country, but rather the
whims
> of the ruling elite that sent them. In such circumstances, patriots
can pray
> and work for the safe and speedy return of our military personnel, but
> cannot honestly describe what they are doing as service to our country.
> Conscription in any form is a repudiation of the founding premise of our
> constitutional republic, namely that governments are established for the
> purpose of protecting the God-given rights of the individual. In fact,
> conscription utterly inverts that relationship by treating the
people as a
> resource to be employed by the government for its own protection.
> "[W]e do not believe there is a sounder principle, or one that every
> unbiased mind does not concede with readiness than it does an axiom,
that,
> if necessary to protect and save itself, a government may not only
order a
> draft, but call out every able-bodied man in the nation," wrote
journalist
> Joel Tyler Headley, in his 1873 account The Great Riots of New York
> 1712-1873, which includes a detailed description of the 1863 New
York Draft
> Riot. "If this right does not inhere in our government, it is built on a
> foundation of sand, and the sooner it is abandoned the better."
> In our constitutional order, governments do not have "rights" (which
is why
> the use of the expression "states' rights" to describe powers
reserved to
> the separate states is problematic). Individuals have unalienable
rights;
> governments have specific, limited, and revocable powers which are to be
> used to protect those rights.
> The power of conscription is not among those enumerated by the
Constitution.
> This is why, late in the War of 1812, with the Treasury depleted and the
> White House still charred from a British attack, Congress refused to
enact a
> proposed draft: It was understood, by a sufficient number of legislators
> (among them Daniel Webster, who spoke passionately on the subject), that
> there was no constitutional warrant to impose conscription on the
American
> people.
> By 1863, that understanding had perished - at least where the political
> class was concerned.
> In July of that year, with New York convulsed in an anti-draft riot
> (actually, it was a full-scale insurrection), the New York Times
published a
> house editorial entitled "The Conscription a Great National Benefit."
> "It is a national blessing that the Conscription has been imposed,"
asserted
> the Times. "It is a matter of prime concern that it should now be
settled,
> once for all, whether this Government is or is not strong enough to
compel
> military service in its defense." Up until then, "the popular mind had
> scarcely bethought itself for a moment that the power of an unlimited
> Conscription was . one of the living powers of the government in
time of war
> The general notion was that Conscription was a feature that belonged
> exclusively to despotic Governments.."
> But this idea was now outmoded, continued the Times, since "not only the
> property, but the personal military service of every able bodied
citizen is
> at the command of the national authorities, constitutionally
exercised.. The
> Government is the people's Government.. When it is once understood
that our
> national authority has the right under the Constitution, to every
dollar and
> every right arm in the country for its protection, and that the
great people
> recognize and stand by that right, thenceforward, for all time to
come, this
> Republic will command a respect, both at home and abroad, far beyond any
> ever accorded to it before."
> Note this well: From the point of view expressed by the Times,
conscription
> is justified simply as a means for the government to demonstrate
that the
> lives and property of its subjects are at its disposal, thus earning
for the
> government the "respect" it regards as its due. This is essentially
the same
> perverted logic behind the familiar refrain that we cannot "cut and run"
> from Iraq, because doing so would gravely injure our government's
prestige:
> Why scruple over the loss of irreplaceable human lives when our
government's
> reputation is at stake?
> Interestingly, the Lincoln regime's determination to impose conscription
> (which actually came after the Confederate government had resorted
to the
> draft), did not leave a favorable impression on our cousins across the
> Atlantic. Reacting to the New York Draft Riots, the London Times
opined: "It
> would have been strange, indeed, if the American people had
submitted to a
> measure which is a distinctive mark of the most despotic governments
of the
> Continent."
> In May 1917, after maneuvering our nation into the European war that
> effectively destroyed Christendom, the detestable Woodrow Wilson
issued a
> decree to re-instate the draft, which he piously described as "a new
manner
> of accepting and vitalizing our duty to give ourselves ... to the common
> purpose of all. It is in no sense a conscription of the unwilling;
it is,
> rather, selection from a nation which has volunteered in mass."
> The idea that somebody - even an overwhelming majority - can "volunteer"
> others to serve in the military is morally enharmonic with chattel
slavery.
> About twenty years before Wilson re-instituted the draft, a Supreme
Court
> decision (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins) held that "The very idea that one man
may be
> compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material
right
> essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems
> intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the
essence of
> slavery itself."
> Predictably, when the WWI draft law was challenged, the Supreme
Court was
> determined not to be a slave to stare decisis, refusing even to
consider a
> claim that the 13th Amendment prohibits the draft as a form of
involuntary
> servitude. (Chief Justice White, who was in the audience when Wilson
> requested that Congress declare war against Germany, had a tearful
fit of
> rapture at the prospect - a reaction that might be described as a
"wargasm.
> )
> The Wilson regime's commissar for War Industries, Bernard Baruch,
was the
> son of a prominent German who fled his native land to avoid
conscription.
> Baruch insisted that while "involuntary service for a private master
is and
> has been clearly and repeatedly defined by our Supreme Court as slavery
> inhibited [sic] by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
> United States," conscription is a different matter entirely. "A soldier
> serves the nation directly," Baruch wrote, dishonestly transposing
the terms
> "nation" and "State." "There is but one master in the case and that
master
> is America."
> Which is to say that slavery is perfectly permissible, as long as
the state
> exercises a monopoly on the practice.
> © Copyright 2005 American Opinion Publishing Incorporated
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
