I wonder if this is true?

[madmick]

Originally posted by The Brain

Originally posted by madmick
Amendment XIII

Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



Bush will sign the Draft into law, if it passes Congress/Senate and will do so after the election.

After it's passed, I wouldn't be surprised if we get lots of Hippie Riots and what not. Should make the '60s look tame too.

<b>Amendment II</b>
<i>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. </i>

While we too often argue for the application of the "right to bear arms" at the <i>individual</i> level, we forget that it also grants the government the power to arm its citizens for the benefit and defense of the State (referring to the country as a whole).

In a time of peace, yes, the draft would in fact be unconstitutional. However, we are at war.

In this instance, the use of a draft in time of war would trump any theory of "slavery" or "involuntary servitude" found in the 13^th Amendment, by virtue of the fact that citizens would be getting paid to defend their own freedom and the freedoms of the country, with the explicit understanding that such a militia would cease to exist once peace has been re-established.

I believe Section 2 of the XIII Amendment covers it all. All Congress has to do is pass the bill and President Dickhead will sign it. Thus making the "Draft" legal.

As far as the II Amendment goes, it gives nothing to the Government at all. It just acknowledges that "We the People" have a God given right to defend ourselves, whether it's from a criminal, a crooked Government or an Invasion from an outside enemy.

A militia is nothing more then your local neighborhood watch, people looking after their own. It's not something meant to be called and shipped off half way around the world chasing after lies.

[SO]

Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right--the right to life--and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.

If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom--then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

The most immoral contradiction--in the chaos of today's anti-ideological groups--is that of the so-called "conservatives," who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher--though not much higher--rung of hell should be reserved for those "liberals" who claim that man has the "right" to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life.

One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that "rights impose obligations." Obligations, to whom?--and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man's rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.

The only "obligation" involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one's own rights to be recognized and protected.

Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents "involuntary servitude."

A volunteer army is the only proper, moral--and practical--way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes--if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army--an army of men who know what they are fighting for and why--is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective.


<center>-----</center>


It is often asked: "But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?" Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country's young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for one of two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War I. (2) If a country's government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country's own government.

Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Vietnam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft.


<center>-----</center>


The practical question of the country's military protection is not the issue at stake; it is not the chief concern of the draft's supporters. Some of them may be motivated by routine, traditional notions and fears; but, on a national scale, there is a deeper motive involved.

When a vicious principle is accepted implicitly, it does not take long to become explicit: pressure groups are quick to find practical advantages in its logical implications. For instance, in World War II, the military draft was used as a justification for proposals to establish labor conscription--i.e., compulsory labor service for the entire population, with the government empowered to assign anyone to any job of its choice. "If men can be drafted to die for their country," it was argued, "why can't they be drafted to work for their country?" Two bills embodying such proposals were introduced in Congress, but, fortunately, were defeated. The second of those bills had an interesting quirk: drafted labor, it proposed, would be paid a union scale of wages--in order not to undercut union scales--but, in "fairness" to the military draftees, the labor draftees would be given only the equivalent of army pay, and the rest of their wages would go to the government.

What political group, do you suppose, came up with a notion of this kind? Both bills were introduced by Republicans--and were defeated by organized labor, which was the only large economic group standing between us and a totalitarian state.


<center>-----</center>


No exact estimates of the cost of a volunteer army have been offered, but the approximate estimates place it at about four billion dollars a year.

Hold this figure in mind. Hold it while you read about our national budget in the daily papers--and while you hold also, clearly and specifically, the image of what this figure would buy.

The years from about fifteen to twenty-five are the crucial formative years of a man's life. This is the time when he confirms his impressions of the world, of other men, of the society in which he is to live, when he acquires conscious convictions, defines his moral values, chooses his goals, and plans his future, developing or renouncing ambition. These are the years that mark him for life. And it is these years that an allegedly humanitarian society forces him to spend in terror--the terror of knowing that he can plan nothing and count on nothing, that any road he takes can be blocked at any moment by an unpredictable power, that, barring his vision of the future, there stands the gray shape of the barracks, and, perhaps, beyond it, death for some unknown reason in some alien jungle [or desert, I might add, today].

A pressure of that kind is devastating to a young man's psychology, if he grasps the issue consciously--and still worse, if he doesn't.

The first thing he is likely to give up, in either case, is his intellect: an intellect does not function on the premise of its own impotence. If he acquires the conviction that existence is hopeless, that his life is in the hands of some enormous, incomprehensible evil, if he develops a helpless, searing contempt for the hypocrisy of his elders, and a profound hatred for all mankind--if he seeks to escape from that inhuman psychological pressure by turning to the beatnik cult of the immediate moment, by screaming: "Now, now, now!" (he has nothing else but that "now"), or by dulling his terror and killing the last of his mind with LSD--don't blame him. Brothers, you asked for it!

This is what four billion dollars would buy--this is what it would spare him and every other young man in the country and every person who loves them. Remember down what drains our money is being poured today: according to the Federal budget for fiscal year 1968, we will spend 4.5 billion on foreign aid and allied projects, 5.3 billion on space programs, 11.3 billion on just one of the many, many departments dealing with public welfare--yet we claim that we cannot afford four billion dollars to save our youth from the agony of a mangling, brutalizing psychological torture.

But, of course, the real motive behind that social crime is not financial: the issue of costs is merely a rationalization. The real motive may be detected in the following statement made by Lieutenant General Lewis B. Hershey, Director of the Selective Service System, on June 24, 1966: "I am not concerned with the uncertainty involved in keeping our citizenry believing that they owe something to their country. There are too many, too many people that think individualism has to be completely recognized, even if the group rights go to the devil."

--Excerpts from Ayn Rand's speech, "The Wreckage of the Consensus" (4/16/67, Ford Hall, Boston, Mass)

[Keyser Soze]

commies!

[madmick]

Originally posted by Keyser Soze
commies!

Shut up, you Pinko Perv.

[Keyser Soze]

someones been trolling CDIH lately

[madmick]

Someone's slower then molasses.

[Keyser Soze]

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame29.html

[The Brain]

It is often asked: \"But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?\" Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country's young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for one of two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War I. (2) If a country's government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country's own government.

Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Vietnam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft.

I think herein lies the problem: the argument for the draft is that citizens should not be able to opt in and out of the military based on personal ideologies-- that is, picking and choosing which battles each individual person believes to be just. When the country needs to be defended for <i>any reason</i>-- even if we are the aggressor, as in the case with Iraq (if you wish to discuss "preemptive striking")-- one's own opinions or rationales for entering the military to defend the country cannot apply.

If it did, it opens up too big a can of worms: "Oh, I'll join the army, but only if I get stationed in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. I have no quarrel with Iraq/Korea/Vietnam (or whatever other country you want to name), and I don't think we should be in there." You know what? Too bad. Right now, we have battle fronts in both countries, so if you sign up (or in this case, get conscripted into service), you go where <i>the country requires you to be</i>, not where you feel like going.

We simply put cannot have such individual subjectivity when it comes to preserving our freedom. It's why this is a <i>democratic republic</i> and not a democracy-- we entrust a small representation of the public to act on our behalf as a whole. So if that small group decides we need to go to war to protect our foreign or internal interests, then so be it, that is what we all will do.

Believe me, this government's beaucracy is already too bogged down-- the last thing we'd need is to have to track down every last person in this country and ask their opinion on how things should be done, on what actions should be taken.

Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right--the right to life--and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.

If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom--then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

<i>E pluribus unum</i>... "from the many, one". By extension, the inherent belief that this society, and the individuals which create this society, are one and the same. Yes, each individual has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; that is not being questioned. At the same time, the individual must realize that those rights can only exist as long as the society that grants them exists-- if this country and its ideals fall, those "certain inalienable" rights go right out the window.

Just to be clear: Yes, Bush has made an awful (<i>horrendously awful</i>) mess of things in Iraq-- we see or hear about it every day. He has acted rashly, with no clear cut way of getting us out of this mess. But we are in the mess now, and it is up to us (<i>all</i> of us) to do our part as the government deems necessary.

[madmick]

E pluribus unum... \"from the many, one\". By extension, the inherent belief that this society, and the individuals which create this society, are one and the same. Yes, each individual has the right to \"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness\"; that is not being questioned. At the same time, the individual must realize that those rights can only exist as long as the society that grants them exists-- if this country and its ideals fall, those \"certain inalienable\" rights go right out the window.

Just to be clear: Yes, Bush has made an awful (horrendously awful) mess of things in Iraq-- we see or hear about it every day. He has acted rashly, with no clear cut way of getting us out of this mess. But we are in the mess now, and it is up to us (all of us) to do our part as the government deems necessary.

The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God. — JOHN F. KENNEDY

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, commie.

[Keyser Soze]

ungreatful bastards live in the greatest country in the world but when it comes time to put up or shut up, they're not willing to defend it.

go move to france, pussies!