Quick, exactly where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to institute a “draft” for the military? I think that is a pretty important question to be able to answer if we are going to claim we live in a ‘free’ country. Think about what the draft does. It allows p.o.s. politicians to force you to go risk your life in order to keep the entire crooked scheme of government going. The draft can force you to either murder someone or be murdered by someone. That is a pretty damn big power for an entity like government to have. People say, “but we don’t have a draft so who cares?” lol, ahh the people really are so easily lulled and duped. If it is such a non-issue, then why do men still have to sign up for selective service at 18? hmmm.
So let’s examine whether the feds actually do have this power that they “wouldn’t use”.
First off, the idea of a draft, was NOT debated when forming the constitution. The issue that was debated was whether the federal government would even have the ability to keep and raise an army AT ALL during PEACE TIME. Read anything you want, federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, writings by any of the holy founders. The issue was, should the feds have the power, the very dangerous power, to keep a “standing army”? Even just getting that power put into the constitution was not easy.
NOW THINK, HOW FAR AWAY THE IDEA OF KEEPING A PEACE TIME ARMY IS FROM WHETHER THE FEDS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRAFT YOU?
The compromise reached to even get the power to keep a peace time army was that they couldn’t pass financing for more than 2 years. Here’s the language. Congress shall have the power:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years
Nothing about the language, “ to raise and support”, means a right to draft the citizens. The army can be “raised and supported” just like it is today, by volunteers. Period. No more analysis needed. There is no draft power. Thank you and goodnight. Don’t forget to tip your servers.
The “right” to draft was well known and existed in many state constitutions. So if they intended to give the feds the power, then why wasn’t language permitting congress to draft people INCLUDED in the constitution? Why wasn’t it debated? What was the point of continuing to discuss “militias” in the constitution if all this power was going to the feds from the mere word “raise”? The reason there are no satisfactory answers to those questions, is because the constitution does no grant the feds the power. And thus, those types of questions are not allowed to be asked in public. Understand?
We all remember our basic history. During the time of the constitution, the militia was the MAIN SOURCE of manpower. And guess what, the constitution quite clearly delineates the control and financing etc of the militias. The powers were divided between the feds and the states. But once again it doesn’t say anything about the power to draft being transferred or shared by the feds!
It is a BASIC rule of contract interpretation that if the TERM is left out, then it was left out for a REASON.
The men of each state were all part of the militia OF THAT STATE. When the feds needed an “army” they would have their small professional army, and they could call upon the states to produce additional men from their militias to swell the army’s ranks if need be. If a state needed to draft men to meet its quota, well, each state had that power. That is how the army was to be RAISED.
There is simply ZERO evidence that the word “raised” granted the feds the unlimited authority to draft the citizens for whatever military venture it cared to, that is absurd.
The federal gov is a government of LIMITED powers. It MUST find a constitutional grant for every power it exercises IN the constitution. And the 9th and 10 amendments EMPHASIZE that the powers that are not granted are retained by the states and the people!!
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.(9th amendment)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (10th amendment)
Certainly granting a power as great as the draft, which can cost you your LIFE and which was already a STATE power would be very clearly spelled out as a grant of authority to the feds. But it is not in there. So it really couldn’t have been made any clearer. The feds don’t have it. Despite what “experts” and “scholars” would have you believe. This is ALL there is to constitutional analysis in a case like this.
But there is so much more. What about the 5th amendment? It says that NO PERSON SHALL BE: deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So they have to pay you “just compensation” for your property, but they can take your life for whatever reason they care and for whatever pay scale they decide to set? I don’t think so.
And what about the 14th amendment’s supposed protection of “equal rights”? The only people drafted are men of a certain age. Gender and age are both “protected classes” subject to 14th amendment. So are disabilities. If there is a “draft” it must apply to EVERYONE EQUALLY, not just men of a certain age.
And don’t forget that once you’re in the military all sorts of your rights are limited. You are also subject to what is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is NOT the same as civilian justice. YOU DON’T GET YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS under it. They GIVE you whatever you get.
So they claim they can draft you in and then subject you to whatever “crimes” they care to put on the books in the military, which you have ZERO input into as a voter, and then impose them on you under whatever rules they care to put into a code of “rights”? How does this pass constitutional “muster”?
Further, the military has all sorts of criminal laws that say you can’t criticize “your commander”, i.e. the president. So they can draft you in and then you are not allowed to complain about the government itself? You lose your right to basic political speech? Think of how absurd this situation is.
And I didn’t even mention the 13th amendment which says you cannot be held to involuntary servitude unless convicted of a crime. But what is forced conscription to “serve” if not that?
These are just some quick off the cuff constitutional problems with the whole concept. God knows what I could find if I really LOOKED. But the problems aren’t just limited to clear constitutional issues.There are so so many more issues that must be answered. Here are a few.
1. Can they draft me in for a term of 5 years? How about 10? How about 25? If not, where does it say they can’t since it doesn’t say anything about it at all?
2. What do they have to pay me? Do they have to pay me at all? Could they pay me 1 dollar? If not why not? Where does it say they can’t?
3. Can they send me overseas to fight?
4. Can they draft me during peace time?
5. What prevents them from drafting me to do a civilian job while “serving” in the military?
ON and ON the questions go without answer.
If the constitution actually authorized a draft, then it would have addressed at least SOME of the issues I just raised. The issues would have been DEBATED as well. But it doesn’t address them and they weren’t debated because the constitution doesn’t AUTHORIZE a draft.
So the question arises,
WHAT HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID ABOUT WHERE THE RIGHT TO DRAFT CAN BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION?
Well, there is a case right on point, Arver v. U.S., from 1918. Right at the end of that big banker war of murder on a mass scale. The court’s opinion is typical double speak nonsense. The upshot, governments all over the world and throughout time have regularly done it, therefore it is a “basic right of government”. Oh, sure, they bury it in obtuse arguments composed of long sentences in order to hide and confuse. But make no mistake, that is the basis. Here is how the court sets out the basic question.
It is argued, [that]… compelled military service is repugnant to a free government and in conflict with all the great guarantees of the Constitution as to individual liberty, it must be assumed that the authority to raise armies was intended to be limited to the right to call an army into existence counting alone upon the willingness of the citizen to do his duty in time of public need, that is, in time of war.
So there is no question that the key issue was decided. So what do they say about it?
But the premise of this proposition is so devoid of foundation that it leaves not even a shadow of ground upon which to base the conclusion. It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.
So they basically just dismiss it out of hand. This should be insulting to any thinking person.Why can’t that issue be doubted? I doubt it. And what duty? What “just” government? Their “reasoning” begs the WHOLE QUESTION. Further, none of this is constitutional argument. It isn’t even an attempt at an argument. On top of that, their “support” in the form of what other governments may do is IRRELEVANT to determining what the constitution permits!! You have to be able to point to a provision in the constitution that grants the authority, not show me a list of other despots and tyrants and criminal enterprises who engage in the conduct!
Could there be a more important right that needs to be expressly spelled out than the right to draft someone into a situation where they might have to kill or be killed? Of course not. But there is NOTHING in the constitution giving that right to the feds. It is just read in by the court. The court is a DISGRACE to the entire concept of justice.
I want you to understand something very important now. The concept is a bit subtle, so think about it. By finding that the draft is “authorized” by language that does not even mention the draft, the court has found a power that has NO constitutional limits because it has no constitutional basis. Do you see how that works? Since there is nothing we can look to in the constitution to understand the scope of the “power”, the power has no definable constitutional limits. Does that sound like something the people agreed to without any debate? Of course not. It is absurd.
I tell you all the time, if the powers that be want something and it isn’t in the constitution they read it in. If something is in there that prevents something they want, then they read that part out. Simple as that. The constitution is dangerous to your freedom because you imagine it protects you when in fact it does the opposite. Let’s continue with the case.
To further “support” its holding the court also makes a big deal about the fact that the feds had created or attempted to create a draft in the past. So? If proposing or passing a law is evidence that the law is constitutional, then what the heck do we need a supreme court for? This type of “analysis” cannot even be called reasoning!! It makes absolutely NO SENSE. It sounds like something my ex girlfriend might say to try and make me do something. lol
The simple fact is the entire opinion is a just a convoluted way of “justifying” their predetermined outcome. Nothing more. What people don’t understand is that the purpose of the SUPREME COURT is to run this type of cover and to “legitimize” the violations of their buddies and the executive and legislative branches. That is what they DO. It isn’t the nonsense you are taught in government indoctrination centers about “guarding your rights”. People in power laugh at you for believing that.
Now I’m not going to go through the whole opinion, the article is already long by necessity. But let me give you just a little more flavor and you will see what the reality is of this opinion. Here is how they dealt with the very problematic first amendment violations.
And we pass without anything but statement the proposition that an establishment of a religion or an interference with the free exercise thereof repugnant to the First Amendment resulted from the exemption clauses of the act to which we at the outset referred, because we think its unsoundness is too apparent to require us to do more.
Just swept them away. NO analysis at ALL! Do you understand why I literally LAUGH at people who try and tell me about the great freedoms in this country. Or how we need to “get back to the constitution”. This is the FACE of the constitution. It is a TYRANNY.
And I have saved the best for last. Here is the holy court’s reasoning about why the 13th amendment’s “involuntary servitude” provision is not violated.
Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of therights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
Please take a moment to read that last quote again. Think about the utter CONTEMPT for their supposed obligation to protect your rights that the court has in order to write something like that.
That type of reasoning is the reality of what the supreme court actually IS and DOES.
My friend, it is simple. If this really was a government “of by and for” the people, then what in the world could ever be a better TEST of whether the PEOPLE think that a war is worth fighting than whether the people are willing to volunteer to go fight? Nothing. It is the ultimate ongoing REAL TIME plebiscite.
If the people don’t care to voluntarily go fight to “defend” the government or whatever the government claims needs to be “defended” well, then the people HAVE SPOKEN.
You cannot have a free country and at the same time have a government that claims to have the right to force its own people to fight, especially when the people never GAVE the government that power. The government has NO right to survive or to force people to fight. To insist otherwise turns the entire idea of freedom and a government based on the consent of the people on its head. BUT THAT, my friend, is the reality of the country you live in.
The government is not your servant it is your master. A master who can send you to your death whenever it cares to do so. That is what this country actually is. As long as the people continue to imagine that the constitution somehow protects them, well, the people will continue to get whatever those in power care to stuff down their throats.
I hope I have been able to show you how the constitutional STRUCTURE of the federal government works to enslave you. This case is not an accident or a “one off”, or bungling. It is an insight into what THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO DO.
I am done for today. I honestly can’t stand to keep thinking about those brainwashed fools running around talking about our freedom and the supreme court and our “rights” and getting back to the constitution and on and on. Anyone who reads this and continues to cling to those ideas is either blind or in on the scam. One or the other.
Take care my brainwashed Brethren, live in the light, and tell someone the truth about the law.
Oh, and do me a favor and take a second to hit the darned “like” button and share it with someone. We have to play the game by the rules they have set up if we want to get the info out there. Thanks.