Patrick.net

H.R. 748 would require all persons in the US 18-25 to perform 'national service

By IDDQD   Follow   Mon, 4 Mar 2013, 5:54pm   653 views   33 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

http://www.examiner.com/article/h-r-748-would-require-all-persons-the-us-18-25-to-perform-national-service?source=Patrick.net

These persons in the United States would either serve the country as a member of uniformed services or as civilian service. The civilian service could be served with a Federal, State, or local government program. The local government programs include community-based organizations.

Viewing Comments 1-33 of 33     Last »     See most liked comments

1. IDDQD Follow Befriend 22 threads 409 comments

   1   6:02pm Mon 4 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (1)   Thirteenth Amendment? What Thirteenth Amendment?

2. New Renter Follow Befriend (3) 13 threads 2,197 comments San Jose, CA Premium

   2   7:06pm Mon 4 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   IDDQD says Thirteenth Amendment? What Thirteenth Amendment? More like the resurrection of a national draft.

3. drew_eckhardt Follow Befriend (1) 2 threads 324 comments Sunnyvale, CA

   3   8:02pm Mon 4 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike   I like it. A black politician trying to bring back slavery is almost funny enough to make soda come out my nose.

4. IDDQD Follow Befriend 22 threads 409 comments

   4   9:40pm Mon 4 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   New Renter says IDDQD says Thirteenth Amendment? What Thirteenth Amendment? More like the resurrection of a national draft. "To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 25 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or as civilian service in a Federal, State, or local government program or with a community-based agency or community-based entity, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to provide for the registration of women under the Military Selective Service Act, and for other purposes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_army "The first labor army (1я Трудармия, 1-я армия труда) was created after the defeat of Kolchak on the base of the 3rd Army located in the Urals region by the initiative of the army commander Mikhail Matiyasevich (командарм Михаил Степанович Матиясевич). Leon Trotsky, acting as People's Commissar of Army and Fleet Affairs and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic at this time, developed this idea further. He argued that the economic situation in the country required introduction of the universal labor duty. In the case of workers, this could be done with the help of trade unions, while in the case of peasantry, Trotsky argued, it was possible only through mobilization. He argued further that "army-type organization is in fact inherently soviet type of organization". His critics argued that this idea was leading back to the times of tsarism and slavery. Trotsky retorted that unlike old times, workers were supposed to work not for exploiters, but for their own good, for their own state, i.e., labor duty is the fulfillment of the obligations of the liberated working class with respect to their "worker-peasant state" in the cases of emergency. "

5. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

   5   10:54pm Mon 4 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (3)   ANNOYING pop up ad with audio on that link! Switzerland has mandatory service, a country that many 2nd Amendment supporters idolize. If George Bush had signed on this, it'd be A-OK! Oh right, when a BLACK man supports something it must be part of a Commie Conspiracy. Mandatory national service is the law in some other countries that are NOT totalitarian dictatorships. I'm against it myself. But if we must have it, then no child of any politican should be exempt from it.

6. IDDQD Follow Befriend 22 threads 409 comments

   6   10:59pm Mon 4 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Vicente says ANNOYING pop up ad with audio on that link! Switzerland has mandatory service, a country that many 2nd Amendment supporters idolize. If George Bush had signed on this, it'd be A-OK! Oh right, when a BLACK man supports something it must be part of a Commie Conspiracy. Mandatory national service is the law in some other countries that are NOT totalitarian dictatorships. I'm against it myself. But if we must have it, then no child of any politican should be exempt from it. Switzerland-shmitzerland...What any of this has to do with OUR Constitution?

7. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

   7   11:04pm Mon 4 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   IDDQD says Switzerland-shmitzerland...What any of this has to do with OUR Constitution? Constitutions can be amended. GOP has proposed a whole RAFT of amendments, so there's a general agreement it's subject to fashionable changes. Selective Service still exists, therefore USA still believes conscription is legal and Constitutional. Mrs. Vicente became a citizen a few years ago, and part of the oath is: "... that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;"

8. IDDQD Follow Befriend 22 threads 409 comments

   8   8:51am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Vicente says Constitutions can be amended. GOP has proposed a whole RAFT of amendments, so there's a general agreement it's subject to fashionable changes. How do you propose changing 13th Amendment? Something like "Slavery and involuntary servitude, except for black people on private cotton fields, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" ? ;) Selective Service still exists, therefore USA still believes conscription is legal and Constitutional. Conscription is legal for military service. This is not what we're discussing here. Mrs. Vicente became a citizen a few years ago, and part of the oath is: "... that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;" Oath, Pledge of Allegiance and other fluff like words on the base of Statue of Liberty is all fine and dandy, but Constitution trumps them all. You can't give up your constitutional rights by taking oath. Besides, natural born citizens don't take the oath at all. I predict that if this ridiculous bill passes it will be killed by Supreme Court.

9. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

   9   10:01am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   IDDQD says Conscription is legal for military service. This is not what we're discussing here. That is exactly what we are talking about here, you just don't know it yet, and yes conscription is legal for military service. The H.R. 748 is about reinstating conscription under a variety of circumstances. The non-military national service you are quaking and cowering about is an opt-out in the bill so that one may choose to avoid military service. From the bill: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/748/text SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE. * * * * * (e) Voluntary Service[non-military service].--A person subject to induction under this title may-- (1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted [into the military]; or (2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction [you can read the bill for the situations where one can be inducted into the military]. Sorry to burst your bubble but there will be no "slave" force you seem to want to fear so much. While this bill does seem to include the standard deferments and postponements that allow for people of means to avoid military service it will be a little upsetting to some that it also allows a way for anyone to avoid actual military service. IDDQD says I predict that if this ridiculous bill passes it will be killed by Supreme Court. I predict that you did not read the actual bill.

10. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    10   10:10am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   drew_eckhardt says I like it. A black politician trying to bring back slavery is almost funny enough to make soda come out my nose. Yeah, that would be funny if that had been what happened. Unfortunately for newscorp's complaining points that is not the way the bill reads.

11. IDDQD Follow Befriend 22 threads 409 comments

    11   10:39am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   leo707 says The H.R. 748 is about reinstating conscription under a variety of circumstances. What do you mean "reinstating"? What happened to Selective Service Act? The non-military national service you are quaking and cowering about is an opt-out in the bill so that one may choose to avoid military service. More like bullying ~30 mil of people into working govt job for free under a threat of conscription into military. We don't need standing army the size which mandatory non-lottery conscription will give us.

12. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    12   11:04am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   IDDQD says What do you mean "reinstating"? What happened to Selective Service Act? You are right, "reinstating" was a poor choice of words. The bill is just changes to how conscription would work. IDDQD says We don't need standing army the size which mandatory non-lottery conscription will give us, do we? You are really determined to not read the bill aren't you? People would only "need" to opt-out of military conscription if there was active conscription actually going on. The bill provides for situations when conscription would occur. It is not always "on." http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/748/text SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE. * * * * * (b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service.--Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if-- (1) a declaration of war is in effect; (2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or (3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force. (c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service.--When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on-- (1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services; and (2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels. (d) Selection for Induction.-- (1) Random selection for military service.--When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service. (2) Random selection for civilian service.--Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2). So, you can see from the bill that the number of people inducted to the military is limited, and people inducted are given a choice.

13. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    13   11:05am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   If the national draft were brought back, any chicken-hawk politician would be thrown out of office and then tarred and feathered.

14. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    14   11:09am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   H.R. 748 would require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 25 to perform “national service”. Violation of both 13th and 14th Amendments. To require someone of certain ages to risk their lives is age discrimination, plain and simple. But if politicians wants to force us to "perform services" for the country in excess of the taxes and work we already do, then I'll rewrite the Constitution. That's the best service I could give to this country. I'd start by making it near impossible to be a career politician. Then I'd eliminate corporate lobbying. Then I'd prevent any person from holding office in more than one branch of government in their lifetime. Oh, I could go on and on...

15. IDDQD Follow Befriend 22 threads 409 comments

    15   11:21am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   leo707 says So, you can see from the bill that the number of people inducted to the military is limited, and people inducted are given a choice. Conscientious objectors are given the choice not to bear arms under current Selective Services act. The bill we are discussing opens a loophole for executive branch to coerce people into working government job for free. This, and adding females to the pool, is the only purpose for it as far as I can see.

16. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    16   11:56am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   IDDQD says Conscientious objectors are given the choice not to bear arms under current Selective Services act. The only thing that it changes about conscientious objector status is that it makes it easier to avoid service, and objectors don't get a free pass to avoid any service at all to their country. IDDQD says The bill we are discussing opens a loophole for executive branch to coerce people into working government job for free. Conscripted people get pay, I did not see anything in the bill about working for free. IDDQD says This, and adding females to the pool, is the only purpose for it as far as I can see. I believe that it also extends the education deferments. I think that currently under selective service you get one quarter or semester to finish up then it is off to war.

17. IDDQD Follow Befriend 22 threads 409 comments

    17   11:59am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   leo707 says Conscripted people get pay, I did not see anything in the bill about working for free. If you can't negotiate your pay and can't refuse to work, it means that you'll be severely underpaid. If the pay was adequate for the job there wouldn't be a need to conscript people to do it. We didn't conscript Rosie the Riveter during WWII, why do we suddenly need conscripts in civilian jobs now?

18. drew_eckhardt Follow Befriend (1) 2 threads 324 comments Sunnyvale, CA

    18   2:04pm Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   IDDQD says If you can't negotiate your pay and can't refuse to work, it means that you'll be severely underpaid. You might be paid market rates for the labor you're assigned, like $10/hour for manual labor helping install a fence along the Mexican border. Of course that may not compare well to what you'd earn doing what you were trained to do like being a Silicon valley software engineer with a $100K+ starting salary. Keeping the same retirement date could also mean $500,000 less in current dollars saved (returns compounded for 40 years are your friend, with the S&P 500 averaging 7% real returns since 1950 and the government letting the hypothetical engineer set aside $17,500 - $22,500 per year in tax advantaged accounts) towards your retirement which translates into $20K/year in current dollars for the last 20-40 years of your life.

19. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    19   2:30pm Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   IDDQD says If you can't negotiate your pay and can't refuse to work, it means that you'll be severely underpaid. What are you talking about? Did you not read the bill or any of the quotes I posted from it? You absolutely can refuse the civilian service. What you can not refuse is the military service. IDDQD says We didn't conscript Rosie the Riveter during WWII We did not conscript women during WWII, this bill will change that. Do you think that it is fair that men are pressed into military service, but women are not? With this bill man, woman, rich or poor it does not matter. Everyone has a way to opt-out of military service. If it ever passes the Supreme Court is never going to strike it down and it is not tantamount to slavery. But for the record I think that it is a terrible idea. Believe it or not the vast majority of people don't want to be force into situations where they are required fight and perhaps die. In the event that this passes and if there is ever another draft, the civilian service is going to be packed with people would could not get any other deferments. In Vietnam there were about 1.7 million draftees over the course of about 8 years. If the president decided that 1.7 people were needed to fill-out the military how many people would opt-out to civilian service for each military conscript? My guess is that you would need to find at least 10 million civilian jobs that need to be filled. If we absolutely had to have a draft I think that there should be zero* deferments. Every man and woman ages 18-55 would be a part of the lottery. Your number comes up your bags are packed and off you go before nightfall. *The only exception to this would be if you are the sole caregiver for your own children. Mom's number comes up then Dad's name goes off the list, and vise versa.

20. Quigley Follow Befriend (6) 17 threads 516 comments Huntington Beach, CA

    20   3:32pm Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   "C'mon you apes! You want to live forever?"

21. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    21   4:17pm Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Quigley says "C'mon you apes! You want to live forever?" Figuring things out for yourself is practically the only freedom anyone really has nowadays. Use that freedom.

22. taxee Follow Befriend 88 threads 457 comments El Cerrito, CA Premium

    22   4:49pm Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   The lottery was started toward the end of the Vietnam war and it slowed the anti-war protests by dividing the youth into threatened and unthreatened, followed by the all volunteer military, which put an end to commoners rising up and complaining in a meaningful way against their overlords in the US. If they desire to go back to anti-war protests/riots this law would be a good start.

23. New Renter Follow Befriend (3) 13 threads 2,197 comments San Jose, CA Premium

    23   8:29pm Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Quigley says "C'mon you apes! You want to live forever?" Yes. Preferably in unimaginable luxury.

24. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

    24   8:47pm Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   taxee says If they desire to go back to anti-war protests/riots this law would be a good start. I would consider that a desirable outcome.

25. Quigley Follow Befriend (6) 17 threads 516 comments Huntington Beach, CA

    25   4:17am Wed 6 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Vicente says taxee says If they desire to go back to anti-war protests/riots this law would be a good start. I would consider that a desirable outcome. Good luck with that Vicente! Look up HR347 sometime. It outlaws protesting at any location of "national significance" or if there is a Secret Service agent somewhere in the vicinity, with penalties of 1 year in jail and 10000$ fines. They've already laid the groundwork for this kind of law. There will be no hippies protesting their conscription at the Lincoln Memorial. The 1st Ammendment rights were the first to go. Then it was the Fourth Ammendment that was weakened to nearly nothing. Now the Thirteenth, and they're working hard to limit and undermine the Second. It's such a bother to govern a people who have Constitutionally guaranteed rights!

26. New Renter Follow Befriend (3) 13 threads 2,197 comments San Jose, CA Premium

    26   7:53am Wed 6 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   So what kind of "public service" would be reserved for the uber wealthy kids? Senate page? Banking regulator? Texas national guard pilot?

27. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    27   10:16am Wed 6 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Quigley says It outlaws protesting at any location of "national significance" or if there is a Secret Service agent somewhere in the vicinity, with penalties of 1 year in jail and 10000$ fines. The courts will throw that out on First Amendment grounds. Then Fox News will call the courts full of activist judges.

28. thomaswong.1986 Follow Befriend 14 threads 2,820 comments

    28   1:33pm Wed 6 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Vicente says Switzerland has mandatory service, a country that many 2nd Amendment supporters idolize. LOL! you dont like the idea of citizens are packing full rock and roll auto assault guns at home ? so where is the crazy violence ? see any gang-bangers running around the Alps ?

29. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    29   4:54pm Wed 6 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Quigley says Good luck with that Vicente! Look up HR347 sometime. It outlaws protesting at any location of "national significance" or if there is a Secret Service agent somewhere in the vicinity, with penalties of 1 year in jail and 10000$ fines. ? did you get the bill number wrong? HR 347 says nothing of the sort. Here is a link to the text of the bill: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/347/text

30. drew_eckhardt Follow Befriend (1) 2 threads 324 comments Sunnyvale, CA

    30   5:55pm Wed 6 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Dan8267 says It outlaws protesting at any location of "national significance" or if there is a Secret Service agent somewhere in the vicinity, with penalties of 1 year in jail and 10000$ fines. The courts will throw that out on First Amendment grounds. Then Fox News will call the courts full of activist judges. SCOTUS let "free speech zones" stand.

31. APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich Follow Befriend (28) 169 threads 4,153 comments Premium

    31   5:58pm Wed 6 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   As a public safety measure, I think everyone should be required to spend two years ripping the arms off of Realtors® and beating them to death with the wet ends as part of their terms of service in a debt-prevention corps. Who could object to debt prevention?

32. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    32   7:06pm Wed 6 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says As a public safety measure, I think everyone should be required to spend two years ripping the arms off of Realtors® and beating them to death with the wet ends as part of their terms of service in a debt-prevention corps. Who could object to debt prevention? Throw in senators and house representatives and I'm in.

33. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

    33   10:43pm Wed 6 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Quigley says Good luck with that Vicente! Look up HR347 sometime. Oh please, that is Snopes-worthy: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp