Draft?

[Devils Dozen]

Alright. I know that I'm slow and I usually find out about things when they are long gone (Especially if they happen in a different country) but I heard something about Obama and a draft and women having to serve in the army and what not. Is this for real or is this something that was spoken of and never taken further somewhere in 2011 cause thats the "newest" news I can find about this..

[Devils Dozen]

Would love to get an answer..

[Admiral Dardanos]

Devils Dozen

Alright. I know that I'm slow and I usually find out about things when they are long gone (Especially if they happen in a different country) but I heard something about Obama and a draft and women having to serve in the army and what not. Is this for real or is this something that was spoken of and never taken further somewhere in 2011 cause thats the "newest" news I can find about this..

From what I understand, there was some movement towards women being added to the Selective Service System, and also allowed into military roles which had been previously denied them, such as front line combat etc.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Only person who ever mentions the draft is that dipshit Rangel.

[King Shining Heaven]

There should be no draft for men or women. Compulsory military service is wrong

[Less Than Liz]

The draft is coming up for a few reasons:

- The rationale behind making the Selective Service Act applicable to men only was that it was designed to create a broader pool of combatants. Now that the combat ban prohibition has been lifted, that rationale no longer applies, so it is theoretically ripe for a court challenge.

- As an equality and justice measure, many feel that, even without a court challenge, the draft should, at the least, include women now that the prohibition has been lifted, although it has also sparked criticism of the draft as a whole.

- With the exception of Rangel, who periodically suggests an active draft, there has been no talk of 'activating' it presently.

[Devils Dozen]

Less Than Liz

The draft is coming up for a few reasons:

- The rationale behind making the Selective Service Act applicable to men only was that it was designed to create a broader pool of combatants. Now that the combat ban prohibition has been lifted, that rationale no longer applies, so it is theoretically ripe for a court challenge.

- As an equality and justice measure, many feel that, even without a court challenge, the draft should, at the least, include women now that the prohibition has been lifted, although it has also sparked criticism of the draft as a whole.

- With the exception of Rangel, who periodically suggests an active draft, there has been no talk of 'activating' it presently.

Alright.. You are using a lot of fancy words ang i'm too simple to understand the idea. So no draft for women?

[Less Than Liz]

Devils Dozen

Less Than Liz

The draft is coming up for a few reasons:

- The rationale behind making the Selective Service Act applicable to men only was that it was designed to create a broader pool of combatants. Now that the combat ban prohibition has been lifted, that rationale no longer applies, so it is theoretically ripe for a court challenge.

- As an equality and justice measure, many feel that, even without a court challenge, the draft should, at the least, include women now that the prohibition has been lifted, although it has also sparked criticism of the draft as a whole.

- With the exception of Rangel, who periodically suggests an active draft, there has been no talk of 'activating' it presently.

Alright.. You are using a lot of fancy words ang i'm too simple to understand the idea. So no draft for women?

Currently, women do not have to register for the draft.

[Omnileech]

Being morally opposed to the draft is a cop-out reason to oppose women not being made to register for the draft while men still do. Equality of the genders means equal responsibilities and this form of discrimination should be stopped.

[sheath1.8]

The draft:

Something every young man under the age of 26 fears.

To jump from the purposed new legislation to allow women to take part in combat rolls, and to say that women will be part of the draft is a big jump.

It is one of those non-issue that are created to distract from the real issue.

[Less Than Liz]

Omnileech

Being morally opposed to the draft is a cop-out reason to oppose women not being made to register for the draft while men still do. Equality of the genders means equal responsibilities and this form of discrimination should be stopped.

They're not mutually exclusive. You can oppose the draft entirely while still acknowledging that, so long as one exists, and so long as combat positions are open to women, women should have to register for the Selective Services Act.

[Less Than Liz]

sheath1.8

The draft:

Something every young man under the age of 26 fears.

To jump from the purposed new legislation to allow women to take part in combat rolls, and to say that women will be part of the draft is a big jump.

It is one of those non-issue that are created to distract from the real issue.

It's not a big jump at all. The Supreme Court's rationale behind the gender discrimination was that the draft was designed to create a broader pool of combatants, and since women were barred from those positions, there was sufficient justification for the discrimination. By removing the prohibition, those grounds no longer hold. That doesn't mean there will automatically be a suit, or that any appeal would meet the Supreme Court, but the lift is so on point with respect to its rationale that it really begs the question, and who knows if someone in Congress will bring the point up for debate.

[sheath1.8]

Less Than Liz

sheath1.8

The draft:

Something every young man under the age of 26 fears.

To jump from the purposed new legislation to allow women to take part in combat rolls, and to say that women will be part of the draft is a big jump.

It is one of those non-issue that are created to distract from the real issue.

It's not a big jump at all. The Supreme Court's rationale behind the gender discrimination was that the draft was designed to create a broader pool of combatants, and since women were barred from those positions, there was sufficient justification for the discrimination. By removing the prohibition, those grounds no longer hold. That doesn't mean there will automatically be a suit, or that any appeal would meet the Supreme Court, but the lift is so on point with respect to its rationale that it really begs the question, and who knows if someone in Congress will bring the point up for debate.

Not to be offensive but your rational is a big jump. Something being brought up for debate is a moo point in Congress.

It would take real legislative action. Not an Obama Executive order. Where as it would be creating a new law not editing the one on the books. The House would have to create it. The Senate would have to approve it (or vies versa). Obama would have to sign it. That will not happen. smile

Further more the the draft really is no longer in effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

[Less Than Liz]

sheath1.8

Not to be offensive but your rational is a big jump. Something being brought up for debate is a moo point in Congress.

Quote:

It would take real legislative action. Not an Obama Executive order. Where as it would be creating a new law not editing the one on the books. The House would have to create it. The Senate would have to approve it (or vies versa). Obama would have to sign it. That will not happen. smile

Further more the the draft really is no longer in effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

Except it's not a moot point. See: Rep. Charles Rangel:

Quote:

CNN) -- On Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the Defense Department would lift the ban on women serving in combat, marking another significant milestone for equality in our nation. Taking this critical step forward to include women in combat strengthens our military by reducing the burden of the disproportionate number of soldiers who are making sacrifices. I sincerely hope that this will spark a national debate about who is fighting our wars and whether all of America can say that we're sharing the sacrifice.

Since January 2003, at the height of the debate on the possible unilateral strike against Iraq, I have advocated for a reinstatement of the military draft to ensure a more equitable representation of people making sacrifices in wars in which the United States is engaged.

And multiple legal academics have publicly commented on both the potential for including women in the draft as well as why they should or shouldn't be included, regardless of that potential. The discussion isn't occurring in a vacuum. It is, as I said before, and as you'll see by the quoted rationale in Rostker, a direct consequence of the lift on the ban of women serving in combat positions.

Additionally, it's not subject only to legislative action. It could be subject to either legislative action or constitutional challenge, and it's possible the likelihood of constitutional challenge would prompt Congress to act preemptively. Do I think it's on the top of their agenda? No. Do I think the discussion is a "big jump" given the purported goals of the draft and the recent removal of the prohibition? Nope, and for the reasons shown above. It's still very much a part of the national conversation.

[Wendigo]

Personally, I dislike Selective Service as a concept. If we haven't needed it for this long, there's no reason to believe we'll ever need it.