If you're in the US, do you think ...
... a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and ... such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation.
I don't. If you don't, it doesn't matter. They made it anyway because the House passed HR 1388 ... in 2009.
I think it's interesting how the final version of the bill doesn't mention it being mandatory; the wikipedia page mentions nothing about it being mandatory. But it's right there in the original version of the bill that was passed in the House.
I guess the Senate removed the mandatory requirement and the House accepted the revision.
Thing is, there's really nothing preventing lawmakers from later adding the mandatory requirement back in.
Anyway, how come the House approved of "mandatory volunteerism" in the first place?
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits indentured servitude, which this service requirement is. But the politicians who want to impose voluntary-mandatory service don't know this. Probably because they were taught in government schools.
Probably. It's possible they never read the law they signed. No excuse, but yeah.
Shhhhhhh! Don't remind them that it's in there!
I wonder what kind of "service" would they want to make mandatory? Let's hope we never find out.
There's an apt word for conscription. It's called slavery.
Alright so I'm currently in the armed forces, and I'm a strong believer that a military background is a good foundation to being a "well-rounded" individual. A lot of big corporations feel the same way, too. Military service always looks good on a resume (especially as an officer).
However, I feel like being "voluntold" to be in the military isn't the best idea. Those who want to be in the military are the ones we want there. I wouldn't want my life to be in the hands of someone who didn't really want to be there. That's just my 2 cents though. I could go on for much longer, but isn't brevity a virtue?
SORRY wrong accnt
게시물 그것의 아주 좋은 재미있는
RFLOL ... it's the government it's not suppose to make sense.
The trail project I help with is for minnows. I am so sorry for the mix up.
Totally agree with you!
Those in power do whatever they want, whether they are acting right or not. Unfortunately that's how it works.
Politicians are complicated, they say one thing and do another, after all they want us all to become slaves.
its funny how little we as americans pay attention to what our employees are doing, we have forgotten that the people that we elect serve at our leisure not the opposite , but we blindly vote for our guy regardless of what he or she has done or not done and once we have cast those votes we just bury ourselves in our smart phones and hope for the best.
I served six years in the U.S. Marine Corps, and I adamantly feel that the military should be an all voluntary service. It improves the quality. The Marine Corps itself would suffer great demoralization if it recruited from a populace that wanted nothing to do with it. It's not easy, and I've seen the most motivated fellows struggle with it as a love/hate relationship from day to day. Throw in people who never wanted to be there in the first place, and you have a real shit show brewing.
But what about people who are there because of stop-loss? I mean, sure, they didn't read their contract. But they also don't want to be there.
Short of a world war, I don't agree with the use of stop-loss. Once again, it completely devastates morale and fucks up the unit from the inside out. It's hard enough dealing with people who joined completely voluntarily and are just biding their time. I am included in that. I couldn't wait to get out towards the end of my enlistment and I joined 100% motivated.
Edit: To clarify, I believe in desperate measures like stop-loss if we are truly under a major threat or invasion. A world war or something of that nature. So I do believe it has a place in the contract, I just don't see it's use as it has been in years past a just use of that clause, but hey, that's just my two cents as a lowly enlisted jarhead. lol
Congratulations @inertia! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honnor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPBy upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!
What I don't see mentioned or considered here is the notion of federal legislative jurisdiction. Specifically this:
In order for a federal statute to have any effect universally, that is, any and everywhere within the states, it must conform to the constitution. If it is not constitutional, it is of none effect. That would, of course, make HR 1388 of none effect in non-federal territory, due to the constitution's prohibition against involuntary servitude.
HOWEVER, the federal government can mandate whatever it damn well pleases within its own jurisdictions - i.e., Washington D.C., military reservations, and other "federal" territories set apart within or outside of the states.
As a voluntaryist myself, I'm not saying this is something that I accept or acknowledge personally... just pointing out this distinction FYI...
😄😇😄
