« previous   misc   next »

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


By IDDQD   Follow   Mon, 4 Mar 2013, 9:54am PST   1,270 views   36 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.

Comments 1-36 of 36     Last »

New Renter   Mon, 4 Mar 2013, 11:06am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 1

IDDQD says

Thirteenth Amendment? What Thirteenth Amendment?

More like the resurrection of a national draft.

drew_eckhardt   Mon, 4 Mar 2013, 12:02pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (5)   Dislike     Comment 2

I like it.

A black politician trying to bring back slavery is almost funny enough to make soda come out my nose.

Vicente   Mon, 4 Mar 2013, 2:54pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike (3)     Comment 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.

Vicente   Mon, 4 Mar 2013, 3:04pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 4

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;"

leo707   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 2:01am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 5

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.

leo707   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 2:10am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

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.

leo707   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 3:04am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 7

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.

Dan8267   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 3:05am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 8

If the national draft were brought back, any chicken-hawk politician would be thrown out of office and then tarred and feathered.

Dan8267   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 3:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 9

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...

leo707   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 3:56am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 10

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 combat 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.

drew_eckhardt   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 6:04am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 11

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.

leo707   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 6:30am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

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.

Quigley   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 7:32am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

"C'mon you apes! You want to live forever?"

Dan8267   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 8:17am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 14

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.

taxee   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 8:49am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

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.

New Renter   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 12:29pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 16

Quigley says

"C'mon you apes! You want to live forever?"

Yes. Preferably in unimaginable luxury.

Vicente   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 12:47pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 17

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.

Quigley   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 8:17pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 18

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!

New Renter   Tue, 5 Mar 2013, 11:53pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 19

So what kind of "public service" would be reserved for the uber wealthy kids? Senate page? Banking regulator? Texas national guard pilot?

Dan8267   Wed, 6 Mar 2013, 2:16am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 20

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.

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 6 Mar 2013, 5:33am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 21

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 ?

leo707   Wed, 6 Mar 2013, 8:54am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 22

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

drew_eckhardt   Wed, 6 Mar 2013, 9:55am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

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.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Wed, 6 Mar 2013, 9:58am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 24

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?

Dan8267   Wed, 6 Mar 2013, 11:06am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 25

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.

Vicente   Wed, 6 Mar 2013, 2:43pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 26

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

EverNickie   Mon, 3 Jun 2013, 2:05am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 27

There is a WAITING LIST to join the military, what is the point of all of this? MORE control??

FortWayne   Mon, 3 Jun 2013, 2:43am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 28

New Renter says

So what kind of "public service" would be reserved for the uber wealthy kids? Senate page? Banking regulator? Texas national guard pilot?

It'll be usual I bet like the draft, where if you have money you can avoid it.

P.S. Didn't mean to hit dislike on that one, finger slipped.

thunderlips11   Mon, 3 Jun 2013, 3:00am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 29

How about Mandatory Service for those 65-68 instead?

Hey, they have a lifetime of knowledge to share. Why make the kids bear all the burden?

Let's see how far THAT would get in Congress.

Vicente   Mon, 3 Jun 2013, 3:02am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 30

EverNickie says

There is a WAITING LIST to join the military, what is the point of all of this? MORE control??

Why did you choose revive this months-old thread?

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Mon, 3 Jun 2013, 3:05am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 31

Does this mean Michelle can have me arrested for refusing to pestork her? She's been persistent but the girlfriend has issues about Michelle's demands. She could just write it up as national service and have the gendarmes after me.

CaptainShuddup   Mon, 3 Jun 2013, 3:48am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 32

How's that change going for ya?

The Professor   Mon, 3 Jun 2013, 5:17am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 33

.APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Does this mean Michelle can have me arrested for refusing to pestork her?

For those (like me) who did not know the meaning.

pestork

Engage in the physical act of love, especially when the actor is a prominent politician and is doing so notwithstanding marriage to another.

AF has a HUGE vocabulary and teaches us something new every time he posts

EverNickie   Tue, 4 Jun 2013, 1:22am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 34

Vicente says

EverNickie says

There is a WAITING LIST to join the military, what is the point of all of this? MORE control??

Why did you choose revive this months-old thread?

LOL. I didn't realize that it was old, I did not pay attention to the timestamp.

CaptainShuddup   Tue, 4 Jun 2013, 2:18am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 35

New Renter   Tue, 4 Jun 2013, 4:02am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

The Professor says

.APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Does this mean Michelle can have me arrested for refusing to pestork her?

For those (like me) who did not know the meaning.

pestork

Engage in the physical act of love, especially when the actor is a prominent politician and is doing so notwithstanding marriage to another.

AF has a HUGE vocabulary and teaches us something new every time he posts

That or he has one of the more interesting "word of the day" calendars

IDDQD is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net