2007-12-06 08:44:34 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Sounds like a fine idea. 3 years, no gender exceptions; no exemptions for those otherwise meeting service standards except for medical school or theological seminary, with follow-on service after graduation. Alternative service for those with conscientious objector status and those not found medically fit for military service (Civillian Conservation Corps, anyone? VISTA? AmeriCorps?). Those enlisting in the Guard/Reserve would serve 365 days active(to include possible deployment); no hiding out here!
Outside of giving our younger generation some real experience of service away from home and hearth guaranteeing that our future political leadership has a signifint number of folks has service experience, it'll also give any number of congresscritters and other political folks the experience of genuinely having to think about the implications and consequences of ther votes...which is the real heart of what Rep Rangel was arguing for in the first place.
2007-12-06 09:47:50 · answer #1 · answered by psyop6 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What would be the reason ?
Unless Congress increased the End Strength of the US military.
There is no purpose to a draft, since volunteers currently meet the manning goals.
If they started a draft, no one would actually be drafted.
Since a draft, only drafts enough men, to meet the current manning goals of the military, after volunteers.
Put it this way, during Vietnam, less than 10% of the draft eligible men, were actully drafted.
Notice I said draft eligible, that didn't include all those with deferments.
So the actualy draft rate was around 6%.
2007-12-06 16:52:20 · answer #2 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No one including the military. Only talk I hear about the draft is from people using it to try to scare people or those that say it would make the military more demographically reflect the nation. No one is really for it because it is not needed or necessary. First group are politicians who want to get votes by scaring people and the second group are those politicians trying to sound politically correct to get votes.
2007-12-06 17:17:26 · answer #3 · answered by GunnyC 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Democrats
NOTE to Ille A: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;", the draft has been ruled as calling up the unorganized militia in the 1860's and again in the 1960's, not as involuntary servitude.
2007-12-07 02:44:14 · answer #4 · answered by Gray Wanderer 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Even the military hates the idea of drafting you losers.
2007-12-06 17:30:41 · answer #5 · answered by John S 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The Socialists are for it
I don't know anyone in the military who honestly supports the draft.
2007-12-06 17:51:04 · answer #6 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Not I and either is the United States Department
of Defense and the Pentagon! the only person that was for the Draft was US Representative
Rangels(D) of New York!!
2007-12-06 16:59:56 · answer #7 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
A few whining Democrats, like Representative Charlie Rangel.
No Republican is for it. And none of the Generals are for it.
2007-12-06 16:48:33 · answer #8 · answered by Dash 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Pass
2007-12-06 16:47:17 · answer #9 · answered by wizjp 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
The 13th Amendment;
________________________
Section 1. Neither slavery nor **involuntary servitude**, except as a **punishment for crime** where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
_________________________
--The draft is involuntary servitude and is not conducted among convicts.
:::::::The Draft Is Unconstitutional:::::::
2007-12-06 21:56:51 · answer #10 · answered by . 3 · 0⤊ 6⤋