On 1/13/2020 7:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/13/2020 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, pH wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-8,
wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pHÂ* wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The
Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government
from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use
in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the
Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your
gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically
anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your
cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and
the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun
ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or
"arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Activist judges!Â* AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme
conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the
draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the
authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe
that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of
Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is
beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for theÂ* draft riots in 1863.

--
Andrew Muzi
Â*Â*Â*Â* www.yellowjersey.org/
Â*Â*Â*Â* Open every day since 1 April, 1971


In times of national emergencies many of the rights in the
Constitution can be temporarily suspended. The draft was
instituted four times in the history of the US starting in the
War of 1812. The latest ran from 1940 to 1973. This means that
it was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor so Churchill
managed to convince Roosevelt that it was coming.

That it was extended through Korea and Vietnam is curious.

Well, the question is really one of federal power versus
individual liberty.Â* You don't have a right not to be drafted.
You have a right not to be a slave, and you have the right to
due process before being deprived of your liberty, but you
don't have a right not to be drafted. Why, because some old
white farts said so.Â* I love the 13th Amendment ipse dixit
analysis:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the
exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of
his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of
the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war
declared by the great representative body of the people, can be
said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation
of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are
constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that
effect is refuted by its mere statement."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/

Okey-dokey! (turning head, coughing .. . lilting strains of
"Over There" rising in the background).

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether
there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which there
is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is questionable
in peace time, but that's just a matter of definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

Since "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were
enumerated very
early on in the document as part of our UNALIENABLE
rights...that is, cannot be taken away, even if we wanted.
So I always wondered how there could be a death penalty if the
right to life
were unalienable and on to the draft question as well.

I know, very simplistic thinking on my part. And there certainly
is a death
penalty and the draft so....well, I'm way too old to be drafted
now anyway.

Thank-you to you and John B. for responding to my question and
I'll go read the 13th amendment

pH in Aptos


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the
military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in
reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a
cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only
reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to
positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeatedÂ* Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer
territory.

I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't?Â* Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations,Â* imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an armyÂ* general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....
--
cheers,

John B.


nice summary of Leonard Zinn if not Chairman Xi himself.

?? This guy? https://www.velopress.com/velopress-.../lennard-zinn/


--
- Frank Krygowski