Where is it written in the Constitution

[Lumi]

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself?



Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty?



Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? . . .



A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men.



Speech in the House of Representatives, January 14, 1814

Daniel Webster

 

[Duff Miver]

Article I, Section 8.

 

[Lumi]

Article I, Section 8.

:0008

Thanks for the research :toast:

 

[Trench]

I've got to agree with the honorable Mr. Webster on this one. Although Article 1, Section 8 clearly gives Congress the right to form armies, maintain a navy and declare war, it doesn't specifically authorize conscription.

Mr. Webster's speech is more relevant today than it was 200 years ago.

:0003

 

[azbob]

The US moved to an all volunteer army years ago and many of today's troops are volunteers.

As long as you have the constitution open, you should reread the passage of PURSUIT of health, happiness and liberty....not the RIGHT.

The occupy peoples should get that passage and drape it over them to keep them warm because they haven't read it or don't understand it.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

under same section would you tell us how Gumby can waive his Obbycare on 1800 business's and collect taxes (oops fees) on some and not others when it clearly states--
opcorn2

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

+++++++++++++++

Nancy Pelosi on 1,800 Obamacare Waiver Recipients: Mostly Very Small Companies

 

[Trench]

The US moved to an all volunteer army years ago and many of today's troops are volunteers.

Congress could reinstate conscription (aka "the draft") whenever they like, although they have no Constitutional right to do so.

:0003

 

[Duff Miver]

Although conscription is not specifically stated in the Constitution, the SCOTUS has heard
cases, and finds it was the intent of Congress.

A strict reading does not find conscription, however it also does not find that Congress has the power to raise an Air Force either.

In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918).[65] The Court summarized the history of conscription in England and in colonial America, a history that it read as establishing that the Framers envisioned compulsory military service as a governmental power. It held that the Constitution's grant to Congress of the powers to declare war and to create standing armies included the power to mandate conscription. It rejected arguments based on states' rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution.

Certainly there is no question but that the SCOTUS has the last word on Constitutional reading.

Of course Congress can always over rule the SCOTUS via amendment.

 

[Duff Miver]

under same section would you tell us how....blah....blah....blah

The individual mandate.

Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance.


So, doggie, if you've got a complaint, take it to the SCOTUS. :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

 

[Trench]

As long as you have the constitution open, you should reread the passage of PURSUIT of health, happiness and liberty....not the RIGHT.

The occupy peoples should get that passage and drape it over them to keep them warm because they haven't read it or don't understand it.

Bob, perhaps it's you that should reread the Constitution. The phrase you referenced does not appear in the Constitution. It appears in the Declaration of Independence. The actual words are...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But I think your erroneous reference actually has some merit to it, as you could easily make the argument that the OWS protesters are "declaring their independence" from the tyranny of the corporate plutocracy that we've allowed to subvert our democratic republic.

So kudos to you for making that shrewd observation. :0074

 

[Trench]

In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918).[65] The Court summarized the history of conscription in England and in colonial America, a history that it read as establishing that the Framers envisioned compulsory military service as a governmental power. It held that the Constitution's grant to Congress of the powers to declare war and to create standing armies included the power to mandate conscription. It rejected arguments based on states' rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution.

Thanks for that clarificaton, Duff.

Nothing surprises me anymore from the body politic that appointed King George in 2000, then gave us Citizens United a decade later.

 

[Duff Miver]

Bob, perhaps it's you that should reread the Constitution. The phrase you referenced does not appear in the Constitution. It appears in the Declaration of Independence. The actual words are...

Nice, Trench. Give the would-be legal scholars an education. :142smilie

 

[Duff Miver]

Thanks for that clarificaton, Duff.

Nothing surprises me anymore from the body politic that appointed King George in 2000, then gave us Citizens United a decade later.

I don't like this Supreme Court either. They're doing just what the right-wingers claim to oppose - "legislating from the bench".

John Jay, rest his soul, would hang them all.

 

[azbob]

Thanks Trench.

Just to put a nice Sunday night bow on this thread, how about if we round up any occupy protester under 30 and put them in the army.

Unemployment drops, the protesters won't face the tyranny of banks abusing them and they get to continue to sleep in a tent.

 

[Trench]

Thanks Trench.

Just to put a nice Sunday night bow on this thread, how about if we round up any occupy protester under 30 and put them in the army.

Unemployment drops, the protesters won't face the tyranny of banks abusing them and they get to continue to sleep in a tent.

Embrace democracy, Bob.

Protest is a beautiful thing. Without it, this country wouldn't exist.