sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Mandating you register for the draft, says to me they are mandating you sign up for involuntary servitude. Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
Mandating you register for the draft, says to me they are mandating you sign up for involuntary servitude. Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
The Selective Service System is authorized by the Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution which says Congress "shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies [and] To provide and maintain a Navy;" The Selective Service Act was the law which established the Selective Service System under these provisions.
Still, the act has been challenged in light of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits "involuntary servitude."[SUP][38][/SUP] These challenges, however, have not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court stated in Butler v. Perry (1916):
The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.[SUP][39][/SUP]During the First World War, the Supreme Court ruled in Arver v. United States (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, that the draft did not violate the Constitution.[SUP][40][/SUP]
Later, during the Vietnam War, a lower appellate court also concluded that the draft was constitutional in United States v. Holmes (1968).[SUP][41][/SUP]
Mandating you register for the draft, says to me they are mandating you sign up for involuntary servitude. Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
Go read the Fifth (5th) Amendment. Not the part about the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. The part generally referrd to as "The Takings Clause".
I am both highly amazed and extremely disappointed in you all, so far. All this talk about ex post facto when that would have absolutely nothing - NOTHING, I say, NOT A DARNED THING - to do with any attempt to confiscate your guns, your fishing poles, or your gas-guzzling automobiles.
Go read the Fifth (5th) Amendment. Not the part about the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. The part generally referrd to as "The Takings Clause".
The government can, generally speaking, take whatever it wants from you so long as it compensates you for not the (as in what you or the open market might define it to be) but some value for what they take. There is a great body of case law regarding the Takings Clause and the government's use of both imminent domain and outright confiscation. A good examplwe of what we might be facing would be what happened to the Australians - they were "compensated" at a rate set by the government which had no bearing on what the open market might have brought immediately before the confiscated guns were declared contraband. (Once declared contraband, the value actually goes into negative figures based on the fines and other penalties for possession of the contraband item. Thus, reasoned the Australian government, any amount we give you is more than the "actual value" of the confiscated gun.)
Sorry to have burst a two-page long bubble.
stay safe.
Notice the semi colon. Who says the feds will confiscate our guns under the guise of "for public use." All the feds have to do is pass a law and then follow a due process to confiscate our guns in accordance with that law.Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall ....blah blah blah yaddi yaddi yadda..... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Involuntary servitude does not free you of your duty to the State. Take jury duty for example.
Edit to cite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System
The Selective Service System is authorized by the Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution which says Congress "shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies [and] To provide and maintain a Navy;" The Selective Service Act was the law which established the Selective Service System under these provisions.
Still, the act has been challenged in light of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits "involuntary servitude."[SUP][38][/SUP] These challenges, however, have not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court stated in Butler v. Perry (1916):
The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.[SUP][39][/SUP]
During the First World War, the Supreme Court ruled in Arver v. United States (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, that the draft did not violate the Constitution.[SUP][40][/SUP]
Later, during the Vietnam War, a lower appellate court also concluded that the draft was constitutional in United States v. Holmes (1968).[SUP][41][/SUP]
I am both highly amazed and extremely disappointed in you all, so far. All this talk about ex post facto when that would have absolutely nothing - NOTHING, I say, NOT A DARNED THING - to do with any attempt to confiscate your guns, your fishing poles, or your gas-guzzling automobiles.
Go read the Fifth (5th) Amendment. Not the part about the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. The part generally referrd to as "The Takings Clause".
The government can, generally speaking, take whatever it wants from you so long as it compensates you for not the (as in what you or the open market might define it to be) but some value for what they take. There is a great body of case law regarding the Takings Clause and the government's use of both imminent domain and outright confiscation. A good examplwe of what we might be facing would be what happened to the Australians - they were "compensated" at a rate set by the government which had no bearing on what the open market might have brought immediately before the confiscated guns were declared contraband. (Once declared contraband, the value actually goes into negative figures based on the fines and other penalties for possession of the contraband item. Thus, reasoned the Australian government, any amount we give you is more than the "actual value" of the confiscated gun.)
Sorry to have burst a two-page long bubble.
stay safe.
Tact skidmark... tact.
I disagree with your assessment for one simple reason. Yes, some things may be taken by the government after due process of law, but they may not take private arms. The fly in the ointment is the Second Amendment. When Madison wrote the Fifth Amendment, he had already drafted the Second Amendment. Were he to believe that the takings clause also applied to arms, he would have said as much. But he didn't. And since the Second Amendment came first and takes precedence over the Fifth Amendment in this regard, the takings clause does not apply to arms. I trust he know exactly what he was doing when he drafted the Bill of Rights. After all, he had Mason and Henry leaning over his shoulder.
However, I also included a caveat in my original post in this thread that stated;
"Now is congress or the executive branch or are state legislatures fully aware of this little impediment and will they abide by this constitutional restriction? I wouldn't hold my breath."
While the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land and We the People are the supreme sovereign, I wouldn't trust our political servants as far as I can throw them.
I find it an interesting discussion on the wording and on what that wording could mean.
Does it matter anymore to our politicians? They take oaths to defend and uphold the consitution, yet then you have the current president we all know looks at it as nuisance, and the one prior to him who wanted it done his way because he is president of the U.S. and called the constitution "just a ******* piece of paper".
I'm not well convinced that the smaller numbered amendments equate to primacy of any of the listed amendments.
For the official record:Notice the semi colon. Who says the feds will confiscate our guns under the guise of "for public use." All the feds have to do is pass a law and then follow a due process to confiscate our guns in accordance with that law.
If the "clause separation" as used by SCOTUS for a 2A argument applies to a 2A argument it must too apply to a 5A argument.
Though, I, not being a View attachment 9808, could be way off on this.
Tact skidmark... tact.
Because Prohibition banned only the manufacturing, sale, and transport - but not possession or consuming of alcohol, some people and institutions who had bought or made liquor prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment were able to continue to serve it throughout the prohibition period legally.
Well, you could, if you choose to, not think about irrelevancies. This would go far towards minimizing that which hurts your head.About what or towards whom?
That you (as in "all y'all") do not understand the difference between confiscation of contraband and taking for public use is not my problem, except to the extent that you continue to muddy the waters with irrelavancies. And make my head hurt.:banghead:
<snip>
stay safe.
But, you got busy banging your head against the wall. So, any further discussion with you must wait until your head clears.CONFISCATE
1: appropriated by the government : forfeited
2: deprived of property by confiscation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confiscate?show=0&t=1357820396
CONTRABAND
1: illegal or prohibited traffic in goods : smuggling
2: goods or merchandise whose importation, exportation, or possession is forbidden; also : smuggled goods
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraband
But I guess it's OK when the fedgov did it???
No, the Constitution, all of it, places limits on government, all of it.
It is no more legal for a city police officer to break into my home & search it on a whim than it would be for a county deputy or a state patrol officer or a federal marshal.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Interesting. Taking advantage of the perks that are derived from fate landing your genetic code in the Good Ole US of A is see.<snip> Land of the free? BS. Biggest lie out there perpetuated by people so needy of being identified as belonging to a nation for the sake of feeling good about themselves. The same type of person recites the assinine Pledge of Allegiance (written by a socialist) so they can say they are proud to be an American. We are human beings and nothing more.
Interesting. Taking advantage of the perks that are derived from fate landing your genetic code in the Good Ole US of A is see.
Anyway, if you do not feel "good" about being a American, then options are available to you, no biggie. Some few folks around here have postulated that there are other, more liberty minded, nations beyond the invisible lines that are the generally accepted boundaries of the US of A. I pledge to not infringe upon your right to find more hospitable environs.
By the way, I am more than the sum of my genetic code.....so speak only for yourself.
I can not discuss that which you do not "see", or, if seen, do not recognize.The reality is that there are no perks. That we're fighting to keep tyranny at bay bears this out. I've got no use for nationalistic pride, which as the old axiom points out, cometh before a fall. If pride of being an American is all it takes to keep people happy, you'd think the country would be a utopian paradise this side of a mythical heaven. The central government operates on the premise of dictating to us, taking our property every payday, demanding we buy the products and services they view are best, etc. Where is this freedom you elude to? You're comments back up the reality of the foolish, feeling good mentality of most arms forums where philosophical midgets abound.