Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GOP Ducks Female Draft Option

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GOP Ducks Female Draft Option

    Link: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/m...pped/84481376/

    Women may not have to register for the draft after all, if House Republicans get their way.

    Republican members of the House Rules Committee during a late Monday meeting stripped provisions from the annual defense authorization bill that would have required women to register for the Selective Service System.

    The controversial provision narrowly passed the House Armed Services Committee last month, and was expected to be a major point of debate on the defense policy bill this week.

    But Rules Committee members instead voted to cut off consideration of the issue on the House floor and strike that entire section of the bill. The unusual but not unprecedented procedural move avoids what could be a thorny debate for both parties over women’s rights and roles in the military.

    Democrats decried it as cowardice by Republican leaders.
    I know many of you guys will disagree with me, but I'm ****ing livid tonight. The GOP ducked discussion on the female draft provision of the defense authorization bill today. Some of you guys say that's it a moot point, and the entire system is outdated...that it will never be used. All the more reason to allow females to bear the mantle of responsibility and register for the Draft. Saying that females can fill combat billets, but not requiring this component of national service, is contrary to good order and discipline.

    Ultimately, the GOP won't experience the blowback on this glaring inequity. It will be females who are currently serving our country. Some will deserve it, but most will not. *******it, I'm pissed! People are signing up to serve their country in a volunteer armed forces, and Congress can't even handle a discussion. That's some weak ****ing ****!

  • #2
    Since a Federal draft is unconstitutional, the GOP should duck Female Draft Option.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Since a Federal draft is unconstitutional, the GOP should duck Female Draft Option.
      If its unconstitutional, then why not dissolve it entirely? Honest question Doc! I respect you. I'm not being an ass.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
        If its unconstitutional, then why not dissolve it entirely? Honest question Doc! I respect you. I'm not being an ass.
        The Federal Government does lots of things that are unconstitutional. Probably 75-95% of what it does, is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution.

        Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to draft Americans into military service. The fact that SCOTUS upheld the draft in 1918 does not amend the Constitution.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          The Federal Government does lots of things that are unconstitutional. Probably 75-95% of what it does, is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution.

          Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to draft Americans into military service. The fact that SCOTUS upheld the draft in 1918 does not amend the Constitution.
          I'm not sure I agree with you, but I still don't understand. Why wouldn't they just do away with the entire Draft if it's unconstitutional? There will be a backlash in the military for some females. All they did was make it harder for females who are already serving. I'm not saying its a rational mindset we're talking about, but it still exists.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
            I'm not sure I agree with you, but I still don't understand. Why wouldn't they just do away with the entire Draft if it's unconstitutional? There will be a backlash in the military for some females. All they did was make it harder for females who are already serving. I'm not saying its a rational mindset we're talking about, but it still exists.
            If the Federal Government did away with all things unconstitutional, it would revert back to its 1820 form. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the *Federal* government to draft Americans into military service.
            Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

            Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

            But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

            --James Madison, Federalist 41, January 19, 1788
            Madison was one of, if not the, primary author of the US Constitution. In his view, Congress' power to spend money was strictly limited to those powers explicity enumerated in Article I, Section 8...
            I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

            --James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817
            James Madison, the "father of the Constitution" and our fourth President, clearly stated in Federalist #41 that the General Welfare and Common Defense clauses did not expand Congress' powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution and, as President, he routinely admonished Congress in this regard.

            The Constitution empowers Congress to Federalize State militias. It doesn't empower Congress to draft civilians into the armed forces. The 1918 upholding of the draft was by SCOTUS was based on, then Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "legal realism" theory. Which asserts that the Constitution means whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it does.
            Last edited by The Doctor; 18 May 16, 05:27.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
              There will be a backlash in the military for some females. All they did was make it harder for females who are already serving.
              The current Administration made it harder for females when they ordered the services to open combat arms jobs to females.

              The females now have to make the standard or the standard has to be lowered. Either option will look bad for those females serving.

              The whole selective service scam was a political ploy by President Carter as a 'counter' to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It served no functional purpose back then and it serves none now.
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                The current Administration made it harder for females when they ordered the services to open combat arms jobs to females.

                The females now have to make the standard or the standard has to be lowered. Either option will look bad for those females serving.

                The whole selective service scam was a political ploy by President Carter as a 'counter' to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It served no functional purpose back then and it serves none now.
                It was also done to counter the (credible) accusations that local draft boards exerted considerable favoritism and cronyism during Vietnam. So a nationally-organized, impartial draft system was a very welcome alternative.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                  The current Administration made it harder for females when they ordered the services to open combat arms jobs to females.

                  The females now have to make the standard or the standard has to be lowered. Either option will look bad for those females serving.

                  The whole selective service scam was a political ploy by President Carter as a 'counter' to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It served no functional purpose back then and it serves none now.
                  As the lady pointed out, if that is the case we should do away with the Selective Service system altogether.
                  Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                  Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                  Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                    As the lady pointed out, if that is the case we should do away with the Selective Service system altogether.
                    This is my point of view as well. Either get rid of the Selective Service requirement for everyone or require both males and females to register. Why should I have had to register when I turned 18 but women are exempt from shouldering the same obligation? That makes no sense, especially if as other posters claim having a Selective Service system is illegal.

                    It seems to me that the GOP congressmen are more interested in irrational backlash at changing times than anything else. More of the same from the Stupid Party ... nothing new here

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Actually, we should do away with the draft. There's no more need for it. The Industrial Age has ended and mass conscript armies are a thing of the past, not the future.
                      That means mass conscription is extremely unlikely to ever happen. The only thing a draft registration allows in the Electronics Age is the potential it ends up being used for mass conscription of the unemployable and barely employable for some sort of government make-work project like a WPA or such.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                        As the lady pointed out, if that is the case we should do away with the Selective Service system altogether.

                        Chief, I agree with that, my main point though was that the opening of the restricted MOS is doing more harm towards females than the Selective Service system.

                        Last week at my daughter's Commissioning the guest speaker asked how many were going into the newly opened MOS.....none of the female officers raised their hand. It was almost like passing gas in church....

                        On as side note, the Navy accepted her ship from the contractor on the same day that she became an Ensign. Her orders are going to have her wait for the ship in San Diego.....trying to convince her to try and get the orders change to Pascagoula....instant 'Order of the Ditch' if she reports there....
                        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
                          Link: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/m...pped/84481376/



                          I know many of you guys will disagree with me, but I'm ****ing livid tonight. The GOP ducked discussion on the female draft provision of the defense authorization bill today. Some of you guys say that's it a moot point, and the entire system is outdated...that it will never be used. All the more reason to allow females to bear the mantle of responsibility and register for the Draft. Saying that females can fill combat billets, but not requiring this component of national service, is contrary to good order and discipline.

                          Ultimately, the GOP won't experience the blowback on this glaring inequity. It will be females who are currently serving our country. Some will deserve it, but most will not. *******it, I'm pissed! People are signing up to serve their country in a volunteer armed forces, and Congress can't even handle a discussion. That's some weak ****ing ****!
                          The GOP is trying to rally the female vote, Biscuit, and like it or not, the concept of forced military service isn't any more attractive to women than it is to men.

                          I agree with all of your points, but I see this as an election time issue that is being handled carefully to avoid driving voters away.

                          Unfortunately, voters aren't nearly smart enough or educated enough bout the actual issues to have informed reactions - they just do the knee-jerk thing and go from zero to totally pissed off in under one second.

                          I have always believed in universal service for full citizenship. "Freedom" has never be free, and if you aren't willing to give to your nation, why should your nation give anything to you?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            The GOP is trying to rally the female vote, Biscuit, and like it or not, the concept of forced military service isn't any more attractive to women than it is to men.

                            I agree with all of your points, but I see this as an election time issue that is being handled carefully to avoid driving voters away.

                            Unfortunately, voters aren't nearly smart enough or educated enough bout the actual issues to have informed reactions - they just do the knee-jerk thing and go from zero to totally pissed off in under one second.

                            I have always believed in universal service for full citizenship. "Freedom" has never be free, and if you aren't willing to give to your nation, why should your nation give anything to you?
                            I'd like to see universal service as well. Without hesitation, I can state that the Navy has given me so much more than I've given it. Beyond that, I get a little tired of the people I call 'the takers.' It'd be nice to see a little more reciprocation in society, which would only help the country.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              1. I find this odd as this was originally proposed by a Republican IIRC. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

                              2. Despite the benefits (manpower, and integration/exposure of otherwise segregated people like Irish, African Americans, Asians, Muslims) I don't like the idea of Forced/Mandatory conscription in the USA. Though some have embraced the idea on this forum, I find it contrary to free choice.

                              Would we enforce it like the Soviets? Having a squad of troops kicking down your door to make sure you fulfill your part doesn't sound like freedom.

                              Or will there be penalties like other countries?

                              Still, there is no guarantees of someone cheating the system.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • Karri
                                Prawn heads
                                by Karri
                                How do you cook them? How do you eat them?

                                So far I've always just twisted them off, and discarded it along with the shells and such, only...
                                Today, 11:40
                              • Jose50
                                Thoughts on the US abandoning NATO
                                by Jose50
                                Now may be a good time for the NATO countries to start beefing up their materiel, personnel and alliances. There is a decided wave here in the US that...
                                Today, 08:41
                              • Von Richter
                                Sagittarius Rising...
                                by Von Richter
                                Just having a re-read of this book after it's stood for donkey's years on the bookshelf. Once again, within the first couple of pages, I'm transported...
                                Today, 01:19
                              Working...
                              X