33 votes

Rangel introducing legislation to reinstate the draft

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/morning-joe/50821067/#50821067

"Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., talks about the two bills which will reintroduce the draft and require all women to register for Selective Service. Rangel also says that “if a president can’t convince the Congress to support the draft than he should not be bringing the question of war in front of the Congress or the American people.'”



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

were they 20,000 troops

were they 20,000 troops committed to protecting the constitution from enemies both foreign an domestic?

Jokers

These jokers are not worthy of draftees. Or, are responsible enough for a war.

His argument is hollow

... So if we had the draft we would have pulled out of Iraq in 2004? Really? So I guess these guys just forgot about Vietnam. People marched in the streets trying to get the "war" stopped, all the wile the draft was in-effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoeWqtjCJ_I

This is not what "The People" want. We have never wanted a Draft. Killing is bad, every 5 year old knows that. Killing for Political reasons is immoral and forcing others to do it for you is wrong on a level that I have no words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzX3_RaIB2U
Embed.
http://youtu.be/BzX3_RaIB2U

This will happen again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV--rAMQoQk
Embed.
http://youtu.be/gV--rAMQoQk

Let's draft Charlie first

For that matter, everyone in congress should spend 10 years in a war zone in service to their country. Now that's patriotism.

If they're too old

Draft their siblings.

To my Liberal Trolls:
"Really Don't mind if you sit this one out. Your words but a whisper, your deafness a shout. I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."
Ian Anderson 1972

Their Children Before Their Siblings

But themselves before all.

If they are too old

They better think twice. Send them anyway. Charlie first.

If ALL of congress AND the senate

spent 10 years in a war zone....then I would REALLY feel safe! LOL
These so called "reps" are pathetic at best!

My real safety is of the Lord!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Will Progressives Choose Peace?

Could bolster the anti-war movement among the anti-gun advocates.

Teddy Roosevelt launched the proressive party

and he carried a Big Stick. I doubt we'll really see peaceful policies coming from that group. Progressives are Fabian Socialists and they are just Marxist who bring communism to the masses in a slow, methodical, indoctrinating method. But if you mess with them, they'll be the first to war on you. Just look at the United Nations, a totally Marxist construct. UN 'peacekeepers' have been and probable are still running sex-slave operations. The UN is in the war-making business.
http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/18/united-nations-libya.html

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Not a new development

Rangel has been introducing this bill for several consecutive years now...at least 7 or 8 I think, possibly ever since 9/11 if I remember correctly. And in previous iterations it has also required that women register with selective service, so that is not a new development either. See this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/charles-rangel-cham...

On at least one occasion, I have heard him try to defend the bill by referring to the increasingly grueling series of redeployments that are impacting the mental and physical health of our service men and women, and explaining that we should all (including the sons and daughters of congressmen and politicians) share in the burden of "defending democracy."

He is a sociopath and hypocrite, but this is by no means a new outrage.

Except

...the sons and daughters of congressmen and politicians will all get off easy. They'll be on "special assignment" pushing paper while stationed in the USA or something like that.

Drafting women is a new development

And this story came out today, this is a new story. Having done it before does not mean THIS is not a new attempt.
Hey, Obama has dropped lots of drones, why keep bringing THAT up?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Actually, women have been included in previous bills

See this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act

I understand your righteous indignation; conscription is reprehensible. However, I was simply trying to point out that this bill has been introduced many times and gone nowhere. As the wiki article points out, many commentators believe that Rangel is proposing it to try and make a point, since it would also remove exemptions for not only women but college students, among other perceived inequities in the current selective service framework.

Now, whether Rangel is in fact doing this year after year to "try and make a political point" about the need for universal national service, or if it is a more practical, calculated effort to float the idea and see just how the political winds are blowing, is for you to judge. I, however, was just trying to provide some more context for this news story, which, to be clear, I certainly did not begrudge you for posting.

Thanks for clarifying.

I often find things that are old, but I have never seen so I post them, or I find something old that is pertinent again I post that... If I had a nickel for every time I got told "that is old" as if there is no value in reviewing recent history...
Oh, I probably do. I've been saving them for a couple years now... ;)
Whatever Rangel's intention is, it just makes me ill that this government feels they re justified to FORCE people to go to wars. If and when America needs defended, men, women and children will take up arms. (Assuming we have anything left to take up...) You only have to draft people if you are waging wars that are really not necessary.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

gaurantee you my 2 daughters

gaurantee you my 2 daughters won't go....

deacon's picture

there is NO requirement

to sign the selective service card
let them fight their own wars

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Not sure where to stick this comment

but in South Carolina, my two boys could not even apply for a learner's permit to drive without my signed "consent" to allow South Carolina to notify Selective Service upon the boys reaching the age of 18. I'm guessing this is some kind of "catch all" or some military strategist is already out there figuring how many expendables they'll have in X number of years.

So if the kids want/need to drive, they have to basically "sign up" at the age of 15. I was not happy about it for sure.

Cradle to grave :(

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

deacon's picture

can't help you with

your out of control gov
but i can tell you a story
my younger brother was a wild driver,he lost his license
in the state of mich,he went to ohio(we have relatives who live there and he used their address) and got another
does this give you an idea?
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Yes but

my surrounding states are "all hooked up" together sharing info DMV-wise. Didn't use to be that way -- it could be that DMV is hooked up nationwide nowadays (nearly national ID), I'm unsure. You know like they're nationally hooking up healthcare, pharmacies etc etc.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

They will not be "allowed" to do

a lot more than you think. Many "doors" will be permanently closed to them if they choose to go down that path. I like deacon, but I find his advise on this topic to be damaging to say the least. There are "possible" consequences for the risks of not registering.

I encourage you to continue reading the comments below. I also STRONGLY encourage EVERYONE to do their own research on an important matter such as this one, instead of simply taking someone's word for it on a message board as FACT. I'm actually very surprised that anyone on DP would actually do that considering all the misinformation that's out there regarding Ron Paul.

Is this true?

Can you give some proof of this? I really want to know. Mom of 3 boys.

You or your sons may want to verify it -

The Selective Service System is a means by which the United States government maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription. Most male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 26 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays and must notify Selective Service within ten days of any changes to any of the information they provided on their registration cards, like a change of address.

The Selective Service System is authorized by the Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution which says Congress "shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies [and] To provide and maintain a Navy;" The Selective Service Act was the law which established the Selective Service System under these provisions.

Still, the act has been challenged in light of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits "involuntary servitude".[38] These challenges, however, have not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court stated in Butler v. Perry (1916):

The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.[39]

During the First World War, the Supreme Court ruled in Arver v. United States (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, that the draft did not violate the Constitution.[40]

Later, during the Vietnam War, a lower appellate court also concluded that the draft was constitutional in United States v. Holmes (1968).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

deacon's picture

show me in the const

where it states the gov can force another to go fight
congress shall the power...to raise support armies
does it say congress can force,or does that mean they can raise money to hire people to go fight?
remember we cannot have standing armies,such as we do today
show me where it says selective service in the const
it is not in there,and it does not matter if they created an office with that name on it,it has no authority than the slave who was hired has,it cannot have more authority than we do,as we are over the slave
now lets speak about the supreme court
is that courts job to interpret or uphold the laws of the const?
their role is to uphold our rights,to make sure the fed gov does over step their bounds as outlined in the const
if they have the authority to interpret,then they also have the right and the might to change it at will
but as we have seen they all have overstepped their defined roles and need to be put back in place,or removed from office and bound over for trial
for dereliction of duty

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

deacon's picture

there is no law on the books

requiring anyone to have to sign and send that back in
a father of 3
all that paper says is,you will not get a college fund
from the fed gov if you don't
they cannot force that upon anyone,the SS card creates
the contract
they sent them here twice,i needed to start a fire
it has been 5 yrs since the first one came,and no word
about not sending it back in
as for the proof part,read that paper if you get one
it says this might happen or that might happen
nothing in it says it is a law,no one can force another into a contract but they can and do fool some
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Thanks,

that makes sense, since it is a contract.

deacon's picture

you are very welcome

also think about like this
can another man force another to do something they do not want to do?
or can the fed gov create a law such as this,when they
supposedly work for US?
you see,most think it is a law and they have to comply
and the people oblige out of fear or ignorance
most are both at the same time,willingly or unwillingly
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Are you SURE this isn't a law???

Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18 thru 25. Women still do not register.

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

The Selective Service System is authorized by the Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution which says Congress "shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies [and] To provide and maintain a Navy;" The Selective Service Act was the law which established the Selective Service System under these provisions.

Still, the act has been challenged in light of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits "involuntary servitude". These challenges, however, have not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court stated in Butler v. Perry (1916):

The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.

During the First World War, the Supreme Court ruled in Arver v. United States (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, that the draft did not violate the Constitution.

Later, during the Vietnam War, a lower appellate court also concluded that the draft was constitutional in United States v. Holmes (1968)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Legal_...

It seems to me that the federal government, as well as the courts, sure seem to think that IT IS in fact A LAW.

From World War II on

None of the "wars" were declared by congress. People cannot be conscripted to go to "war" if "war" was never declared. This is the reason the founding fathers were against a standing army. It leads to all kinds of mischief, as we see today.

I know that and it's NOT what we're talking about.

The question was put forth that if BY LAW, one must register for selective service. If Congress decides to declare war on Iran, or anyone else for that matter, and the draft is implemented, those who have not registered may be prosecuted BY LAW. Why is this so hard to understand???

Cassius Clay, known to the world as Muhammad Ali, was convicted of violating the United States Selective Service LAWS by refusing to be drafted. Clay was promptly sentenced to five years in prison and fined $10,000, the maximum penalty for the offense. ONLY AFTER appealing was his conviction reversed for having met the three standards for conscientious objector status. Must be nice to have power AND money AND the ability to get the Supreme Court to actually give a rats ass about your case(good luck with that one).

What happened with the NDAA? What happened with Obamacare? Are they unconstitutional? Yes. Can the government still move forward with judges firmly in their pockets? YES!

With all the talk of gun control and confiscation, what if the draft is actually implemented as AN EXCUSE with the sole devious plan of getting most 18-26 year old males(and now possibly women) out of the country with the sole intent of leaving the country even more defenseless and making gun confiscation easier and smoother? You'd surely kill a lot of birds with that one single stone, wouldn't you?

Bottom line is you can CHOOSE AND RISK to break that particular LAW. If and when the time comes, do YOU want to be made an example of and be convicted by the government. Just don't cry and bitch about it afterwards if the federal government decides to pursue you. You may want to ask yourself if it's worth the risk considering all we've heard in the past couple of years concerning the draft. Most of us don't have the luxury of fighting this in court while a loved one is incarcerated, specially if the government, AS USUAL, will drag it out to the point of financially ruining you.

I take issue with the statement of, "Don't worry about it. The government CAN'T AND WON'T do ANYTHING short of denying school loans". Would you also like to fill me in on what next week's powerball numbers are going to be, as well as giving me a date for the end of the world?

Someone asked if it was true that there was NO requirement and asked for PROOF.;

SO FAR, I have only seen written documentation about this BEING A LAW.

SO FAR, people HAVE been prosecuted BY LAW. It may be a drop in the bucket, but would you really want to be one of the people to go through all that?
http://hasbrouck.org/draft/prosecutions.html

Personally, I don't agree with, OR like selective service. It's an unpopular and rarely enforced LAW. However, IT IS a LAW and you CAN be prosecuted for it. With all the talk about Iran, gun control/confiscation, the NDAA, and the dollar crashing - as I mentioned above, I strongly believe that this Police State that we now live in will start enforcing this LAW in the near future.

To each their own, but I would encourage playing it safe and registering for selective service. If the time came for a draft, I would take it from there and cross that bridge then.