Martha Raddatz noted that Army and Marine Corps leaders just said they thought women, like men, should have to register for the draft — the nonexistent draft. Shouldn't we ask why we impose ritual form-filing on anyone?
Raddatz prefaced her question to the candidates with: "Many of you have young daughters." I find that offensive, but maybe you think it properly pokes at the conscience or moral feeling. Why shouldn't the prod be "Many of you have young sons"? Why are sons burdened with something that daughters get to ignore? Do we even remember the traditional answer? Young men's bodies are expendable. Women's bodies are needed to produce the next generation of expendable males and baby-making females.
Raddatz aims first at Rubio. Does he think "young women [should] be required to sign up for Selective Service in case of a national emergency?" Rubio begins with the recognition that woman do now serve in combat and that he supports it "so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised." Fine, but those are volunteers. What about exposing women to some future draft? He says: "Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women...." Opened up? Isn't that odd? We're talking about imposing a requirement, not creating options. He quickly moves on to a military topic where he's got talking points to dump — rebuilding our too-small Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Raddatz moves on to Jeb Bush, who completely fails to answer the question. He babbles about not imposing a "political agenda" on the military, the right (not the requirement) of women to serve in combat if they can meet "minimum requirements," and how we shouldn't be "weak militarily" and just "talk about red lines, and ISIS being the J.V. team, and reset buttons and all this." Raddatz tries to pull him back to the question, and he responds with the assertion that the draft won't be reinstituted. There's quite a bit more pushing by Raddatz to get him onto the question, and though at one point he reveals he knows what the question is — "You — you asked a question not about the draft, you asked about registering" — he never gives one word of an answer.
At this point, Chris Christie breaks in: "Martha? Can I — can I be really — can I be really clear on this, because I am the father of two daughters?" Demanding to go next? Playing the I-have-2-daughters card? He gets away with this, and he'd better answer the actual question.
What my wife and I have taught our daughters right from the beginning, that their sense of self-worth, their sense of value, their sense of what they want to do with their life comes not from the outside, but comes from within. And if a young woman in this country wants to go and fight to defend their country, she should be permitted to do so.I get that he wants women to think of him as the one who cares about women, but permission to serve if you want is exactly not what registering for the draft is about. But he moves to the right subject:
Part of that also needs to be part of a greater effort in this country, and so there’s no reason why one — young women should be discriminated against from registering for the selective service.Let's just pretend it's the women who are being discriminated against. Do viewers not see that the current discrimination is against men and that the proposal is not to increase but to limit the options open to women?
The fact is, we need to be a party and a people that makes sure that our women in this country understand anything they can dream, anything that they want to aspire to, they can do. That’s the way we raised our daughters and that’s what we should aspire to as president for all of the women in our country.Back to the old cheerleading for women and the treacle about dreams. They say you can "be all that you can be" in the Army as they encourage you to volunteer, but there is at least one very obvious thing that you cannot be in the Army. You can't be a person who is not in the Army.
So Christie got away with interrupting to take the opportunity to promote himself as a champion of feminine fulfillment, and he only answered the question in the form of pretending it meant close to the opposite of what it means.
Now, Ben Carson decides to butt in:
CARSON: Can I say something...He talks about the decrease in volunteers but not the draft as a solution. He wants to treat veterans better, helping them with health care and "integrating them back into society." And then "we won’t have to ever worry about a draft again." So, like Jeb, his only point is there shouldn't need to be a draft. Not a word about the real subject: whether men alone or men and women or nobody should — in a country with no draft — have to register for the draft.
RADDATZ: We just covered — wait one second, Dr. Carson.
CARSON: Something about the draft. Very quickly.
RADDATZ: Very quickly.
How incredibly annoying! It's a difficult question, one I've discussed many time in constitutional law classes, and no one engaged on the level that would get any credit at all on a law school exam. That is, they're not even showing that they understand the question. But you understand the question, I trust. So take this poll and discuss it in the comments.
Here's the Supreme Court case that said it's not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to require men but not women to register for the draft. That's from 1981, but if you think that's wrong, you should be disturbed that we're still following it. Congress is free to end the discrimination either because disagrees with the Court or because it prefers a stricter standard of formal equality. That stricter formal equality is achievable either by ending registration for the draft or by including women along with men. The alternative that we have now can be defended as a substantive — as opposed to formal — equality, in which the physical differences between male and female bodies justify the different treatment.
In times of dire military emergency, when a draft would be needed, government overcomes the individual's freedom, and in that awful situation, it may see males as expendable and females as necessary to rebuild the population. But so what? If everyone is registered, the government will know who's male and who's females, and if the draft comes, it can restrict the draft to males if it wants. I don't expect any political candidate to talk about this on the level that would satisfy me, but I am criticizing them for failing to answer the question Raddatz asked.
Posts
141 comments:
What a skewed poll! Where are the two options for "only women"?
We know why they couldn't answer the question Radditz asked. The War on Women. So blame the democrats for being disingenuous and shutting down any conversation that doesn't praise women or *give* them (us) something.
If women are needed to procreate and men are forced to fight, then women should be drafted and forced to use their bodies to procreate.
That's worth discussing. What would women say?
You really can't blame the candidates for being distracted.
When I see Martha Radditz all I can think of is the Grateful Dead logo.
I don't think it enhances the security of the nation to have women serve in combat, but why not draft them into public service (like conscientious objectors) in equal numbers as men are drafted into the military? One of the burdens of being drafted, besides being shot at, is the disruption to a very important period in your life. Equality demands an equal burden placed upon women.
I'm for unisex stockades and brigs for our warrior princesses.
Radditz is trying to pull a Stephanopolis by injecting a talking point as a question. Abortion was 2012. Now "War on Women" will appear somewhere. If we were in an existential crisis, we would have to draft women. Women in combat is a phony issue driven only by female officers who see it as a promotion point. Women in supporting roles, or a few as pilots, should be available if needed.
The military does not want a draft, Only Democrats want it as an anti-war issue.
Anymore there is much about military service that is not physical. Women can do that stuff at least. Also if they got drafted there would be fewer wars, because they would be a stronger voice in opposition. Drafting women would actually be an antiwar stance.
Gloria Steinem thinks women should be drafted so they can meet more boys.
It's a hard question to answer if you can't say what you really believe: "I don't give a shit if women register or not; I just want votes."
I'm a woman and a strong feminist. I have a 20 year old daughter, and two sons, ages 17 and 13, to the extent that matters in establishing bona fides. I don't like selective service registration for the same reason the gun rights crowd don't like firearms registries. Makes oppression too easy.
But, if we are going to have registration, it absolutely should be for both boys and girls (hardly "young men and women," at age 18.). Exempting women from the draft is precisely the same as exempting them from certain religious obligations--viz,
Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, etc.--which is cited by adherents of those religions as why, for example, women "get" to pray, if at all, in segregated, unequal spaces, why they "get" to have male relatives support them and drive them around, etc. Exempting a class of people from an otherwise universal civil obligation is an indication of discriminatory impulse, and universally results in discrimination against that class in other spheres. Dalits are exempted from the ban on eating meat, and therefore are reviled as unclean. Women used to be exempted from the "burden" of voting. Slavery was justified as "exempting" blacks from bearing responsibilities for which they were unfit--i.e.m to fend for themselves.
Which is worse:
Your country forcing you to go far away from home, live in compounds, and fight and be wounded or die
OR
Your country forcing you to live at home, get pregnant, and give birth
?
I looked at the transcript and it seems like the earlier issue "drafted into combat" is conflating two related discussions. The military opened combat roles for women is one. The second is the rising preference for broadening the draft.
I don't think the issue is "drafting women into combat" like we're the Soviet army of WW2 pulling people off the streets, shoving them into a train or plane and dropping them off to fight.
The draft expands the military substantially and includes filling support roles. And a fair amount of combat roles doesn't require the sheer strength of infantry and special forces. So, the draft allows maximizing the full potential of every citizen of age.
I can't think of any argument other than sexism that would make a draft only limited to men. And culturism. Northern European cultures had a long tradition of fighting women. Put Lagertha on a billboard.
Add to this, at what point would we need a draft? Likely only if we've been devastated by an attack and have to mobilize citizenry very quickly. Are women going to sit out on this? Of course not.
How come there is no "Just women" option?
And Micheal K. Makes very good points.
I agree with everything he said, above. Especially, the military does not want a draft. Results in having to process too many completely unfit people. On the other hand, our preferred solution of sending volunteers back for multiple tours is unjust.
One of the fantastic things about the selective service, is it starts your FBI database file.
Right now we have a lot of women criminals and the FBI has to start their database only after the first adult crime.
You have to stay ahead of the proletariat.
So it's a way also, to empower the police in the war on terrorism.
The answer isn't to expand selective service registration to women but to repeal it for men. If ever this country can't get enough volunteers to fight for its very survival in an existential crisis, maybe we don't deserve to make it. Or, practically speaking, maybe we're already sunk.
Figure that it takes 9 military personnel to support one fighter. There are plenty of jobs open to women including those who want to fight alongside men using the same bucket to wash from and the same latrine for the great equalizer-going to the "bathroom." Feminists want diversity? Give it to them good and hard. As a Veteran of Viet Nam-Welcome to the club. The Russian women in WWII fought and died under the same conditions as the men. Same with Israeli women. Now we have women from the middle east blowing themselves up for the caliphate. Let's do it and make it dependent on equal qualifications for the job sought.
There are two grammar mistakes in here, prof!
For shame!
Draft registration is a joke. Most boys don't even do it. The government doesn't enforce it. Why would girls care about it?
For political power, only.
Answer: "I don't want to see a return of the draft, but if such a thing were necessary, of course both young men and women should register. In such a national emergency, our entire population should be mobilized. Each should serve in accordance with his or her abilities if called upon to do so, which I hope will never occur."
What is the matter with these people?
As I recall, Mother and Father Althouse met in the military during WWII, is that right? I think perhaps that shapes the professor's views, and if it doesn't, it should.
According to family lore, my mother considered joining up while my father was overseas during the big one.
If you can believe Hillary, she looked into joining up during the Viet Nam War...I don't believe her.
You'd have 4F and 36DD.
It should be for everyone or no one. It's the only way to prepare for the coming lawsuit when the trans man who identifies as female refuses to register.
"Raddatz prefaced her question to the candidates with: "Many of you have young daughters." I find that offensive," Sure you do.
Of course, the gotcha-element of the question gives the lie, as if any were needed, to feminism-means-equality. Feminism is about giving women what they want and enhancing their power. No reason to be "offended" by the logical implications.
Here's my answer to the exam question:
Justice White's dissent is more applicable today:
"[T]here would be a substantial number of positions in the services that could be filled by women both in peacetime and during mobilization, even though they are ineligible for combat"
In 1981 computers were reserved for geeks and scientists. Sure the military used them then, but much more today. Women should be drafted into at least non-combat positions where they can work on computers and do non-combat work.
The idea that women aren't as good at computers or STEM has been debunked, or at least isn't acceptable anymore (see firing of L. Summers.) There is no sense in having able-bodied men sit at desks. If the argument is that you can have the weaker men doing desk jobs, then then that should also apply to women because there are many women stronger than the weaker men. Ronda Rousey will go into combat and Gilbert Gottfried can be in the kitchen washing dishes.
Now our biggest threat isn't large combat operations, but terrorism. Fighting terrorism is not primary physical but intellectual. Women are, by many accounts, at least as smart as men. A few studies even suggest women are even better than men in some areas. Women are also terrorists (see San Berndardino.) We NEED our best women to fight the women on the other side. Our enemy and their tactics have changed.
I could probably go on, but that's my 10 minute answer.
Also, the
Michael K: If we were in an existential crisis, we would have to draft women. Women in combat is a phony issue driven only by female officers who see it as a promotion point. Women in supporting roles, or a few as pilots, should be available if needed.
Yup. Funny how none of these "conservative" candidates can cut through the crap here and say this?
Better yet: "Yes, we need an effective military, which makes women in combat an idiotic idea. As is pouring resources into making the military a 'safe space' for mentally-disturbed men who enjoy being a girl. Next question?"
Either the military should be male only, or women should have to register for the draft.
I was discussing this issue with my (senior) students this week. The girls all felt that women should be able to choose to serve, but should not have to sign up for the draft. The boys were all outraged that they had to register, and the girls didn't.
Women are, by many accounts, at least as smart as men.
Feminist quote of the day.
Both women and men should be required to register for the draft. Then for the sake of equality and to repair historical wrongs, only women should be sent to war to fight and die for the next 200 years. It's the least we can do to fight the patriarchy.
Ryan:
"The idea that women aren't as good at computers or STEM has been debunked, or at least isn't acceptable anymore (see firing of L. Summers.)"
Did Larry Summers say that women aren't as good at computers or STEM?
I'm listening to the radio, and it's WDGYs Sunday Morning Breakfast With the Beatles. Today, it's the Ed Sullivan show, and you can hardly hear the band with all of the girls screaming.
No, you don't want to register women for the draft. Not only no, but hell no.
Everyone always seems to miss the truth of the matter on this subject and SCOTUS in 81 was fundamentally wrong. It takes 10 rear-echelon soldiers to put one combat infantryman into the field, the old tail-and-tooth ratio. I thought that number had dropped to 7 to 1 in recent years, but when this issue bubbled up, I checked with a friend of mine that recently retired as a first sergeant in the Army. 10 to 1 is still the case.
Thus...it takes cooks, clerks, motorpool, meteorology, quartermaster, etc, etc, to put combat units at the sharp end of the spear. The combat casualty rates in those jobs is exceptionally low, even in units that might brush "the front" from time to time. If there really is a discriminatory preference for men, then the logical answer is to draft women EVERYONE in the rear-echelon jobs, freeing up able-bodied (and, apparently, disposable) men for the combat jobs. I don't understand what's so hard to figure out here other than an illogical emotional response to the issue.
That question is a little awkward for a Republican debate because all those candidates are going after a sizeable contingent of women who don't think that women should be in combat (I know the draft doesn't have to mean combat but that's what you think of first). They're trying to win votes of people who believe in traditional gender roles more than they believe point-scoring against feminism.
It would be awkward in a Democratic debate because feminists are only interested in the fun markers of equality. They'd pivot away from it too. I doubt they'll be asked
Here in Norway there's still a draft and women are drafted on an equal basis with men. This started about a year ago and there's hasn't been much media coverage or controversy about it.
If the US were to reinstate the draft it most likely would be due to a national emergency. In such a situation, it would only be fair that women share the burden.
Implementing a draft would be the Republicans' starkest admission that their foreign policy has utterly failed.
JPS:
"It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population."
I think the problem was that he put "overall IQ" in there, but didn't say the deviation favored women. If he had spun it so women appeared smarter, he would probably have gotten a raise, instead of being fired.
Remarks are at https://web.archive.org/web/20080130023006/http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html.
The point is that we can't say men are better at anything anymore, unless its something nobody cares about. Even if its true, you can't say it, and that includes Congress in passing a law or the Supreme Court in explaining their rationale.
Very simple; if women are equal to men - as they argue and expect - then being registered for the draft is a no brainer. I don't understand why there is even a debate.
The demographic reality is an entirely different issue. Eating your seed corn is never a good idea, but the idiots in Washington forget that people get killed in combat regardless of sex.
To me requiring that women register for the draft is a very appropriate big middle finger to the most rabid of feminists. Infantry : equal pay, equal living conditions; equal risk - the feminist ideal!
It is inherent in all societies, throughout time, that men fight to protect the women and children.
That is, unless there is a shortage of men to fight, or are unwilling to fight.
If you are willing to don a pair of pajamas and sip coffee while the women fight your battles, that's on you.
Liberals always seem at war with the natural world.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Implementing a draft would be the Republicans' starkest admission that their foreign policy has utterly failed.
Why only Republicans. When I was drafted, a Democrat was President.
If we need a draft, we are in a deep enough hole that we need to draft women. Not for combat but to stay home and breed more soldiers, workers, etc for the State. And that would be the end of Roe v. Wade, because aborting a future fighter would be destroying government property needed in the war effort. Treason.
Feminists have not thought this through. Why am I not surprised?
This would have been a good time to deflect the question by pointing out that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of Defense Carter believe that women belong in combat arms of the service, so the question would seem to be moot. If I was one of the senators, I'd point to female senators who favor women in combat by name and make them share the blame (assuming there is blame to be shared).
I also think that Ben Carson should have played the race card on Raddatz when she peremptorily told him "very quickly." Something along the lines of "The black man thanks you for your indulgence."
Of course my feelings about the draft are colored by my having been a Vietnam-era draftee. We received just enough training to be decent cannon fodder before being given an M16 (that was apt to malfunction before you emptied your first magazine) and told to go shoot some gooks. Today's army volunteers get better training, better weapons, better officers, and better care if wounded than we did back then.
Liberals always seem at war with the natural world.
People leveled the same accusations against such liberal things as the enlightenment and American revolution. But they were fortunately defeated.
And I agree with AllenS -- the President who drafted me was named Johnson and no one would mistake him for a Republican.
Ryan, thanks. Sorry for a disingenuous question: From your original phrasing I wondered if you'd bought into the usual secondhand version. Your follow-on point is a good one.
Why only Republicans. When I was drafted, a Democrat was President.
Because of now. The War against Communism Everywhere was a bipartisan adventure, and more of the blame can rightly go to Democrats for its prosecution in Vietnam. But the idea that we're going to fight a national war to snuff out Islamic caliphate revival is a Republican one. Although you can be sure that a President Hillary! would do her best to recall her childhood Republican roots, her need to compete with the other party, and send troops in to as many Mid-East hellholes as she feels would burnish her warmongering credentials.
@Owen Put the knife in and twist it!
Thanks for the question, professor.
First thought: the world should be like it was during our school years (1950s and '60s) men yes, women no.
Second thought: men and women are by nature different; different social treatment is appropriate but should not be codified into Law. Law must simple (understandable) and minimal - else it forfit respect of the People. The Law should avoid the issue and treat all persons equally. Answer: either register all or register none.
(Particularly so in these times. Male and female are defined how? Personal choice? Chromosomes? Presence or absence of ovaries or testes? What if neither?)
Third thought: by Libertarian Principal of limited Government, no draft, no registration. If this devolves into the feudal levy or tribal defense of territory, then so be it. Principal of limited government prevails.
==========
As should be obvious to all, these are not "debates" but engineered political productions by the networks - loud thumping background music, audience reaction, hyperactive immoderate behavior by Candidates and "moderators" alike.
Kudos to Raddatz for the question, and some effort to keep Candidates on point.
But to paraphrase Raddatz at the kick-off when Carson did not hear his entry cue - it's great to have so much noise at a debate that nobody can hear what is said.
So, R&B, I take it that the loss of American lives in Libya was Republicans fault? How about Somalia? Have you ever heard about The Battle of Mogadishu?
JPS: civility on the Internet. Amazing when it happens!
Shorter R&B. When (notice that he doesn't even hedge with an "if") Hillary Clinton is president and she goes adventuring around the Middle East with the US military, it will be the fault of those rotten Republicans and her alleged "Republican roots."
Go take your meds, sonny.
"So, R&B, I take it that the loss of American lives in Libya was Republicans fault?"
Yes, AllenS, everything bad in the world is republicans' fault and everything good is to the credit of some democrat — probably Obama or Hillary. Did you honestly not know that?
December 1972 saw the last men conscripted, who were born in 1952 and who reported for duty in June 1973. On February 2, 1972, a drawing was held to determine draft priority numbers for men born in 1953, but in early 1973 it was announced by Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird that no further draft orders would be issued. In March 1973, 1974, and 1975, the Selective Service assigned draft priority numbers for all men born in 1954, 1955, and 1956, in case the draft was extended, but it never was.
Wanna guess, R&B, who the President was then?
On July 2, 1980, President Carter issued Presidential Proclamation 4771 and re-instated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System.
Ya, those damned Republicans.
So, R&B, I take it that the loss of American lives in Libya was Republicans fault? How about Somalia? Have you ever heard about The Battle of Mogadishu?
Oh. I thought you meant the thousands of American lives that Republicans (and their ally Hillary!) wanted to expend and still want to expend in places like Iraq - as well as the many more brought back with PTSD, amputations and TBIs, etc. Not the dozens or less lost in those other places.
But if you like confusing dozens with thousands then go ahead. It's the kind of thinking that reflects Republican budget policies, or really anything they touch that involves math and numbers.
People leveled the same accusations against such liberal things as the enlightenment and American revolution. But they were fortunately defeated.
Liberals are the first to assign themselves credit for some long past common virtue in an effort to cast off the stench that surrounds them.
Society's version of Stolen Valor.
just men. sorry science deniers, but men and women are different. In general, men are more physically and mentally equipped for combat than are women. just because there may be a handful of women capable of doing the job (without lowering standards of readiness) doesn't mean that most women are. These women are the great exception. If they want to fight, they can volunteer. Requiring all women to register for the draft would be a colossal waste of time and resources as 99.999% of the women would be unfit for duty.
Wanna guess, R&B, who the President was then?
No Democrat is debating that or would debate or propose that now. This came up because it was a Republican debate.
Are you too shellshocked to remember what year it is? Or whose debate Althouse watched and is discussing in this post?
The Draft registration, despite the lack of a draft, mirrors exactly the thinking behind universal background checks for gun purchases. If there is ever a need for a draft, the registration lists are available instantly. If there is ever a confiscation of firearms, the gun ownership lists would be available instantly.
That is one strong argument against universally requiring background checks of private gun sales, or registration of firearms.
And who was it opposing the Draft last time it existed? The Democrats! Yet they want to implement a scheme to make possible the confiscation of firearms by registering their ownership one way or another. It isn't hypocracy - it is about power. The Dems want the power to abrogate and infringe rights they oppose, and yet don't want anyone doing the same to them.
Liberals are the first to assign themselves credit for some long past common virtue in an effort to cast off the stench that surrounds them.
Conservatives seem to be the ones loving themselves a re-write of history and a need to jack themselves off.
Was John Locke a conservative or a liberal? Who came up with the idea of attacking the ancient "divine right" of kings so as to re-order society in such a way as to put the people in charge?
The American Revolution was supported by about a third of the people. A third opposed it - preferring to maintain their "Tory" alliances with the king, and a third had no preference. Do you actually propose that the third preferring the colonial status quo and retention in the British Empire were "liberals"? The revolutionaries wanting a change from the usual political ordering of a monarchy were "conservatives"? Nice way to redefine your terms there.
It wasn't only Hillary!, R&B, you could also add the names Gore and Kerry, plus most of the Democrats in the Senate.
"Rhythm and Balls" thinks it is Republicans that want a draft. How anti-historical, if not an outright lie.
The intellectual framework for resisting a draft was laid by Chicago-School economists, such as Milton Friedman. Next time you wish to be wrong, be wrong within shouting distance of plausible.
There should be no draft. But all 18 year olds should register for Selective Service, or none.
The question about registering for the draft, is a question that would never be asked at a Democratic debate. How embarrassing for Hillary to answer, knowing about her husbands response to a draft notice.
The Enlightenment and the American Revolution were Liberal only by the definition that should still be used. That is, the primacy of individuals vis-a-vis the state.
No Democrat politician is a Liberal by this definition.
Is today "Rhythm and Balls" ahistorical day?
"In March 1973, 1974, and 1975, the Selective Service assigned draft priority numbers for all men born in 1954, 1955, and 1956, in case the draft was extended, but it never was."
I was in this cohort. My lottery number was 78. Still have my draft card. When they stopped drafting I felt like Winston Churchill's comment about being shot at and missed.
There goes "Big Mike" (BM), which is short for bowel movement pretending that Hillary Rodham didn't grow up a Republican.
It explains her psychodrama with Republicans, her conservative impulses, her need to engage them in the battles that they choose.
"Raised in a politically conservative household,[8] Rodham helped canvass Chicago's South Side at age thirteen following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, where she found evidence of electoral fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon.[15] She then volunteered to campaign for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964.[16] Rodham's early political development was shaped most by her high school history teacher (like her father, a fervent anticommunist), who introduced her to Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative, and by her Methodist youth minister (like her mother, concerned with issues of social justice), with whom she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962.[17]
Wellesley College years
In 1965, Rodham enrolled at Wellesley College, where she majored in political science.[18] During her freshman year, she served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans;[19][20] with this Rockefeller Republican-oriented group,[21] she supported the elections of Mayor John Lindsay and of Senator Edward Brooke.[22]"
It's all there, dipshit.
She's all yours. We don't want her.
It wasn't only Hillary!, R&B, you could also add the names Gore and Kerry, plus most of the Democrats in the Senate.
They don't concern me. They're not running for president.
But the only one who is and cast a vote against it is running as a Democrat.
That's what matters.
Now "Rhythm and Balls" wants to claim John Locke with another misapplication of the word liberal?
This nonsense should stop. But it won't. There is a reason the Democrat Party mislabeled itself.
The Enlightenment and the American Revolution were Liberal only by the definition that should still be used. That is, the primacy of individuals vis-a-vis the state.
Oh, I see. You decided to appoint yourself Chairman of the Committee to decide that the social implications of those things (political change in the 17th and 18th centuries) should only have relevance to how Republicans want to re-define and re-appropriate them today. They were conservative to 21st century Republicans so they were therefore not progressive. Got it.
John Locke was a liberal and considered to be the forerunner of liberalism. It's Birkel who decrees that not only should liberalism only have a 17th and 18th century context, but that John Locke wasn't a proponent or an adherent.
Good Lord are you dumb and fatuous:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke:
John Locke FRS (/ˈlÉ’k/; 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704) was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism".
Professor Althouse should really be more careful, she seems to indicate that she thinks men can't get pregnant. That kind of bigotry can get you fired.
No, "Rhythm and Balls" that is false, even if not misleading because nobody here believes you an honest broker.
The American Revolution was radical and liberal because it rejected state control and elevated the individual to its proper place. Find a Democrat or a Republican making those arguments and provide a link, you blinkered fool.
You may try to confuse Liberal politically, with all its efforts at state control, and liberal with its focus on individual rights. But nobody here is fooled. That nonsense doesn't play with a well-informed group such as comments here.
The question about registering for the draft, is a question that would never be asked at a Democratic debate.
Ask it of Hillary, then. I'm not the one here defending Hillary.
No, "Rhythm and Balls" that is false, even if not misleading because nobody here believes you an honest broker.
I didn't realize I was trying to "broker" anything, you witless cretin. This is not a negotiation. Although, given how poorly informed Republican and conservative voters are, perhaps you suffered under the misapprehension that that's how knowledge is formed.
The American Revolution was radical and liberal because it rejected state control and elevated the individual to its proper place.
Bullshit, if you think that's all it was about. It was part of a social revolution as well, and not merely political, as you imply. Authority of every sort was re-ordered, uprooted or modified. Authority of the sort you like to claim here.
Find a Democrat or a Republican making those arguments and provide a link, you blinkered fool.
Gordon Wood is good enough. Look him up, and stop subjecting me to your semi-literate harangues.
You may try to confuse Liberal politically, with all its efforts at state control, and liberal with its focus on individual rights.
Your convenient "stuck-in-time" definition is predicated on pretending that the industrial revolution never occurred, and never required any modification in our understanding of how economic and state power re-ordered itself and should be challenged in ways that Locke couldn't anticipate. But that's just you being an idiotic Republican voter again.
But nobody here is fooled. That nonsense doesn't play with a well-informed group such as comments here.
This statement is funny enough to go out on its own comedy tour.
Keep lecturing me on how "pre-industrial" liberals are the only liberals whose ideas matter and how today's Republicans are the "true" liberals by pretending that the agrarian society of Locke is the only valid lens through which his ideas should have ever been viewed.
It's why your crew is losing. It's why Bernie and Trump are winning.
It's pretty simple. Register men and women now. If and when we get to the point of actually drafting people, we then sort out the issue of who gets drafted and for what purpose.
One might argue that would slow us down in a time of actual emergency. To the contrary, if it were a real emergency we probably would not tarry long on that issue.
This approach avoids bringing the constitutional question to a head right now. That's very Supreme Courtish. Don't decide a constitutional issue unless it's actually necessary to resolve the case.
Shorter Birkel: The only rights that matter are the rights of the king, corporate chief executive, or the lobbyist - because they are "individuals" and only individual rights or private rights are important - if Lockean liberalism is to have any relevance.
They should be allowed more power over the political process, saith the Birkel.
The draft is slavery. Involuntary servitude is involuntary servitude.
If we face a real threat that requires a lot of new soldiers in a hurry, a combination of patriotism and big increases in military pay will raise them. Of course, if we taxpayers aren't willing to pay these young men what it costs to get them to expose themselves to danger for us, then we deserve what we get. Why should the greatest costs of war be paid only by the young?
Sometimes, when a politician doesn't like a bill being introduced they try and add a poison pill to the legislation so that it will be sure to fail.
Adding women to our military like this is a poison pill. It was a poison pill when it first started and they were allowed into non combat roles. Now it's all coming to fruition.
Also helpful to know that all of the Republican candidates are gutless weasels. That levels the playing field with the Democrats.
W.W.C.S? "What would Carly say?"
And I wonder why the Democrats never got asked that question?
Shorter "Rhythm and Balls":
Pretend that modern political Liberals have anything whatever to do with classical liberals. Forget that those modern day political Liberals wish to exercise control over individuals, which was exactly the opposite of what classical liberals advocated.
Even shorter:
Lies.
"When they stopped drafting I felt like Winston Churchill's comment about being shot at and missed."
No. You missed being shot at. It's quite different.
Good thing for woman the ERA hasn't been adopted. It's hard to see how a carve out for woman can be done under an equal rights amendment.
It's nice to see R & B cast out Hillary as unacceptable, as not one of us and thus cannot vote for her in the general if she is the nominee. Hillary is tainted, once a Republican, always a Republican.
Rhythm and Balls said...
[The question about registering for the draft, is a question that would never be asked at a Democratic debate.] -- AllenS
Ask it of Hillary, then. I'm not the one here defending Hillary.
I took your advice and called Hillary. She said: "I could answer your question, but that kind of speech will cost you about $250,000."
Birkel -
You sure do love to call people names.
But what's interesting to me is your incoherence and inability to answer any challenge.
Show me where Locke said that individual rights were the only rights that mattered. Show me where he said that the property of a king or chief executive was so sacrosanct that it should be used to buy off any democratic process.
Of course, you can't show any of those things. But as an idiotic ideologue who so devalues individuals that you have committed to the idea that inanimate things like money and property have their own rights, and that they should be allowed power over the voters, you have no choice but to make such a stupid implication. Your belief system requires nothing better of you.
The only thing you have in common with Locke is your delusion that we still live as farmers. That industry hasn't occurred, let alone made its bosses as powerful as kings.
Just call yourself what you are: A pre-industrial Lockean.
Good God you are a stupid man!
Aww, you don't like being called on your purposeful deceit?
You should show, as you are the one making a claim, that modern political Liberals have anything whatever to do with the classical liberalism of John Locke. Show your work.
We both know you cannot do so. Just admit your claim false and move along.
Shorter "Birkel":
Pretend that the modern economy has anything whatever to do with 17th century England's economy. Forget that those modern day political Conservatives wish to exercise control over individuals through the corporate state, which was exactly the opposite of what classical liberals advocated.
Even shorter:
Lies.
You should show, as you are the one making a claim, that modern political Liberals have anything whatever to do with the classical liberalism of John Locke. Show your work.
The "work" is obvious to anyone familiar with the history of industrialization and the transition from serfdom's feudal estate-based labor to factory-based labor, which is something that is very obvious to a lot of people. What a pity to know that you are not one of those people.
We both know you cannot do so. Just admit your claim false and move along.
You are the one falsely pretending that the economies of Locke's time are the same as today's economies. How stupid and dishonest of you.
"Rhythm and Balls" above:
"But as an idiotic ideologue who so devalues individuals that you have committed to the idea that inanimate things like money and property have their own rights, and that they should be allowed power over the voters, you have no choice but to make such a stupid implication. Your belief system requires nothing better of you."
Me:
What the fuck does that word salad have to do with anything? Unpack your meaning and write more clearly. As I have yet to advocate anything, except your foolishness at purposefully confusing words, I need prove nothing. This paragraph makes my point.
"No. You missed being shot at. It's quite different."
How old are you, David?
"...inanimate objects..."
Like government. Bureaucracy. Democrat Party. Corporations. Congress.
You beclown yourself so effortlessly.
Locke was opposed to government. He thought it was a necessary evil, and should be as small and constrained as possible. Modern liberals definitely don't agree with that. Locke believed that the basic role of government was to protect life, liberty and property. Modern Liberals definitely disagree with at least two, and arguably all three, of those ideas. Locke was opposed to democracy, and supported republicanism. Modern Liberals have been making the US more democratic, and less of a republic since at least the Progressive Amendments.
Historically, Locke can be seen as a man of the Left and a Liberal. In terms of modern politics, Locke would be more conservative than most of the Republican candidates for president.
Me:
What the fuck does that word salad have to do with anything? Unpack your meaning and write more clearly. As I have yet to advocate anything, except your foolishness at purposefully confusing words, I need prove nothing. This paragraph makes my point.
Your stupidity and confounded response to grammatical complexity is a shame. But not one that can't be used to illustrate what you so egregiously miss!
Throughout this entire phony diatribe, you keep insisting that the only Lockeans or liberals are those who pretend that we live in the 17th century economy of Locke.
You seem to miss entire concepts and histories that have since occurred. One of those would be "industrialization."
Are you capable of finding the meaning for "industrialization", Birkel?
Your entire complaint against modern liberalism hinges on your blindness to the fact that it's simply accounted for industrialization.
Money and property have no rights, but the people who own them do.
Gahrie's confusing Locke with Hobbes. But it's good to know that Birkel isn't the only conservative here who misunderstands Locke.
This is a rather tricky political question that Althouse treats as straightforward.
There is virtually no active debate about extending draft registration to women, which means sensible answers could easily come across wrong to the majority who have not given it thought.
If you've not paid attention, it's easy to confuse "registering" with "forced enlistment". It's easy to confuse combat with support roles. And it's easy to see how the vague idea that "young daughters" could be forced into combat could lead to dangerous hesitation when responding to threats.
Given that the rhetorical battlefield had not been prepped, it's smart politically to pretend the question was a little different than what was asked, deliver some strong statements related to the typical formulation of the debate, and live to fight another day.
Money and property have no rights, but the people who own them do.
And their rights to do what they want with them are infinite?
Does owning money give me the right to bribe a hit-man to knock off that obnoxious idiot Birkel?
It is my money, after all! I can do whatever I want with it!!!
72
Given that you are no longer defending the deceitful conflation of political Liberals and classical liberalism, would you like to admit your lie?
I didn't think so.
"Rhythm and Balls" thinks hiring hit men is a clever argument. And there you have it, folks.
OK, David. You're entitled to your snark.
Birkzerkster -
I notice you keep tiptoeing around the the difference that a lack of industrialization made to Locke's philosophy on the political economy. You seem afraid to even mention the word.
It won't kill you, though. Say it with me: Industrialization.
Given your fear of taking account of industrialization, combined with your pretension to admiring Locke's original ideas, I think it's fair to call you what you really are: A pre-industrial liberal.
"Classical" liberal sounds very nice and fancy. But it's not meaningfully descriptive.
"Pre-industrial liberal" is, though. And that's exactly the kind of liberalism you would defend.
You think liberalism's ok as long as it's part of a feudal economy.
Keep twisting, though. It's clear what you are.
Industrialization? Is that what this thread is about?
"You sure do love to call people names."
- R&B
WTF? Go back and read your own words.
Survival of the fittest. Minority rules and interests. The dodos are permitting... nay, demanding evolutionary dysfunction.
Doesn't the IRS already track viable human lives?
AllenS:
Of course it's not. This thread was about instituting a draft, a policy long followed by Democrats who are illiberal and believe the state owns the people. See, e.g. "Rhythm and Balls.
"Rhythm and Balls" believes industrialization allows him to rewrite history, redefine words and misrepresent the views of his betters who are long-since dead. You know, standard-issue Leftist con job stuff.
Lol.
Birzerkstrel feels that he can confiscate for himself and now own the word "liberal," because the only type of liberalism he agrees with is the kind that existed under a feudal economy.
Which is funny. I somehow doubt that people will now agree that "liberal" will be used to describe corporatist bootlickers like him. But one can dream. And since he is a GOP-partisan apparatchik shill, he can make things up and live them however he wants. No matter how phony they are.
They didn't answer the question because the question was on such a minor issue that it shouldn't have been asked in a presidential debate.
Carson raised a much more important issue. We have an all volunteer military but the number of people volunteering is decreasing. Raddatz should have asked about this issue, not some trivial topic. She is out of touch.
WTF? Go back and read your own words.
I never said I didn't call names. But I can do other things, too.
And when angry idiots want to purposely misunderstand things, and make it a point to be so obtuse as to pretend that the politics of a feudal economy and the politics of an industrial economy are interchangeable, then I think it's important to point out how stupid that is. I feel that "idiot" should be available as an objective description.
Check this out: A guy who pretends that feudal economies and industrial economies are politically identical, called me a liar. A guy that obtuse doesn't even merit the accusation "liar", as he's obviously too stupid to even understand the difference between truth and falsehood. But he IS masochistic enough to understand other insults, and that's all that matters to someone as simultaneously destructive of dialogue and incapable of reason as he is.
"Rhythm and Balls":
"...corporatist bootlickers…"
If you wish to insult the Obama Administration, I will not stand in your way. But then I have always despised collectivists, whether we called them fascists, communists or Democrats.
"Rhythm and Balls" digested:
The Industrial Revolution changed everything so much that collectivism is the only rational response. Forget about the 100+ million corpses in that Dustbin of History.
"...corporatist bootlickers…"
If you wish to insult the Obama Administration, I will not stand in your way. But then I have always despised collectivists, whether we called them fascists, communists or Democrats.
Good god is this incoherence delicious!
Ok Mr. non-corporatist bootlicker. You tell me which fellow non-corporatist bootlicker of the GOP you're supporting this year, as they collect their billions in corporate donations. Is it Cruz?
Rubio?
Carson?
Christie?
Trump?
Go on. Tell me which "man of the people" you're going to give your hard-won vote. Which of those anti-corporatist leaders your say is riding on.
Forget about the 100+ million corpses in that Dustbin of History.
I wasn't aware that Scandinavia had that many people, or that Western Europe killed that many of their own - let alone for economic reasons.
Oh well. Maybe it was their corporatist illiberalism that kept that from happening.
You really are so stupid as to think these distortions are going to keep going anywhere. It's quite incredible to watch.
"Rhythm and Balls" asked "You tell me which fellow non-corporatist bootlicker of the GOP you're supporting this year, as they collect their billions in corporate donations."
I assume "Rhythm and Balls will be voting for Hillary Clinton so I suppose I should ignore the fact she -- like Obama before her -- will receive far more money from business corporations than the Republican candidate.
Further, I will ignore the unions which are incorporated to avoid personal liability for its management. Because those corporations don't count.
This is a fun game.
I assume "Rhythm and Balls will be voting for Hillary Clinton so...
You assume 100% wrong. If it's Hillary I will not vote or might possibly even vote against her.
Didn't anyone tell you how assumptions make an "ass" out of....?
Your entire contribution to this attack-thread on me has been a bunch of assumptions.
Now, go ahead and tell me which fellow non-corporatist GOP bootlicker you're supporting this year.
Things are harder for you when you're forced to actually be personally honest and not allowed to dodge the questions, aren't they?
Allen S: "Why only Republicans. When I was drafted, a Democrat was President"
I had a friend who noted that he was told that if he voted for Goldwater in 1963, that "we'd be in a war within four years." "I did and we were", he noted.
A draft would have to be instituted by Congress and the President, so it is a good question to ask Presidential wanna-bes and sitting Senators. They should have a clue. Because it is such a third rail at a time when most of the Republican candidates are pushing for more boots on the ground and our military is showing signs of fatigue, it is probably prudent to give these non-answers in order to preserve viability for the nomination and the general election. It would be nice, though, to have some inkling of what they would do. This should be revisited at the general election debates.
Women who are in health care professions are subject to the draft under a 1987 law that has a special draft for persons age 20-54 who fit 57 job categories (all of whom are licensed and therefore are on some government roll) and can be called up in a national emergency when the draft is restarted. So technically some women are already subject to the draft.
This is a fun game.
Everything is a game when it comes to someone for whom, like Birkel, the truth doesn't matter.
Everything is fun for a sociopath.
The country has problems, Birkel. Tell us what your solution is, and who we can count on to implement it. Stop focusing on a single commenter in a blog thread.
Unless you have nothing better to do, which is of course entirely possible.
Modern war doesn't truly require a draft for the sake of forcing national service. Countries in a total war, where a draft is most properly applicable, generally function as a sort of war socialism, where any resource and any person can be commanded as required.
This was what Britain did more or less. Mobilizing women for the war did not require a draft. Britain still managed full control of the "manpower budget" and that's what they called it. Everyone was in it, and the planners assigned headcount by categories including war industries, civilian industries, and "social" functions such as mothers of young children, child care, elder care, etc. There's a volume of the British official history covering this.
Considering this, conscription as a category seems moot.
Combat is something else.
The difference in modern war is a matter of risk. Civilians are "warriors", given modern weapons, but with luck with lower casualty rates than the infantry, which could suffer 100% casualties (many US units had much more than 100% casualties in the ETO, 300% in some cases -the ranks had to be replaced thrice in that campaign - wounds, debilitating illness, psychological harm " shell shock", and death, often 25% or more for US infantry in the ETO.
"Implementing a draft would be the Republicans' starkest admission that their foreign policy has utterly failed."
What happened to that R&B who sounded reasonable yesterday ? Was that an imposter ? Today we have the old lunatic Ritmo blowing off steam with idiotic comments.
"many US units had much more than 100% casualties in the ETO, 300% in some cases -the ranks had to be replaced thrice in that campaign"
The armored divisions in Normandy had 600% casualties and infantry were being given 8 hour training in tanks and sent out in Shermans that were no match for the Germans.
"Rhythm and Balls",
I do not believe you when you say you won't vote for Hillary. You are a known liar so the prospect of trusting you is diminished to zero and is irrecoverable.
You ask for a plan. That is such a stupid thing for which to ask. The assumption is that I, or anybody, has the information necessary. I cannot help you.
As for non-total wars - "little wars", colonial wars, police actions, whatever one wants to call them.
Its a bad idea to use conscripts for these.
Every colonial power save Japan had a combination of professionals and foreigners.
Those powers that forgot this had problems - the French at Madagascar, Spanish in the Rif, etc.
If the US really were short of military combat manpower it would be the easiest thing in the world to raise a foreign legion. They need only send a man to Manila and he would have an Army Corps in a day.
Some of the European countries, especially France, justified their uneconomical colonial empires because of the military manpower they expected to raise from the colonies. Arguably these Senegalese, Moroccans, Algerians, etc. made the difference between survival and collapse for France in WWI.
"The War against Communism Everywhere was a bipartisan adventure"
No, not really. In fact, many of your tribe on the Left wanted the marxists to win, and were pretty glum about the fall of the USSR and still hate Reagan for that.
Good Lord!!! R&B thinks Hillary Clinton is deep down inside a Republican? That would be news to most people.
Hillary was a "Goldwater girl" but quickly repented once she got to Yale.
"Rhythm and Balls" wrote "(t)he country has problems…"
That is why I support any president who would remove the reactionary legions within the federal bureaucracy from power. Free the American people to overcome problems through innovation, discovery and mostly free exchange of goods and services.
The assumptions of the collectivists cannot be allowed to stand.
I know, Big Mike, I know. It was a shock to me also.
I do not believe you when you say you won't vote for Hillary.
And Republicans wonder why they and their anti-science party isn't taken seriously. The facts are right before you. You don't believe who I said I would or wouldn't vote for? Who cares. YOU WON'T EVEN SAY WHO YOU WOULD OR WOULD NOT VOTE FOR! Talk about disingenuous! A guy who is too much of a pussy to go on the record and simply reveal his own presidential preference has the balls of bullshit to say he won't believe someone else's stated presidential choices! That is hilarious in the extreme. No wonder the Republicans are fucked. Even a Republican can't come out and admit his own preference from among them, while he goes and calls someone else's choice a lie! Newsflash: Not everyone's as ashamed or embarrassed of their own vote as you are of yours. You need to stop projecting, yesterday.
Isn't this two questions
Currently feminists are saying that there is no difference between men and women. Doesn't this mean that women should sign up for the draft? Why aren't women demanding the right to sign up for the draft? Are they cowards? Are they only interested in rights, not duties? Does it matter that women POWs in the Mid-East would likely be raped to death? and unable to work with Islamic militias?
Currently conservatives are maintaining that there are substantial differences between men and women such that women are the ones that give birth and men are better at fighting and should man armies. Are most women capable of being effective combat soldiers? Should they be drafted into combat? Are most men capable of giving birth and just avoiding the draft so to speak?
"Rhythm and Balls", you have not been paying attention. I have said repeatedly in these comments sections that I preferred Scott Walker because I think he understands that neutering the Deep State is necessary. Past that, as I have repeatedly said, I support Ted Cruz because I believe he is the next most likely candidate to stop and hopefully decrease the size and scope of federal government power.
I see no evidence that any of the other Republican candidates understand the nature of the internal enemies to America's success that confront America. It is my firm belief that the United States is internally hamstrung against its own threats by the Leviathan State.
But I will support any of the current candidates, save Trump, over any of the foreseeable candidates on the Democrat side of the ledger.
Had you been paying the least attention you could have known this and more about me, as I have repeated it variously across a dozen or more threads.
And I still know you are a liar who cannot be trusted about even basic facts, such as your farcical use of the term liberal above.
" men are better at fighting and should man armies. "
Not necessarily. Usually.
More important reason is men are expendable.
"Rhythm and Balls", you have not been paying attention.
To someone who repeatedly calls me a "liar" (without even identifying the alleged lie)? Nope. I tend to ignore people who do that. It's a basic issue of decency and common courtesy.
Nor do I consider "these comments sections" to be the same as "this thread," the thread in which I asked the question. You might be sympathetic to the fact that I don't read every post or every comment and that it's a bit nonsensical to assume I retain some type of encyclopedic knowledge of whatever anyone said, ever, in every single Althouse comment.
That said, Scott Walker hasn't been in this race in forever and there are still a number of still-running candidates other than Trump. I guess updating one's approach to electoral choices isn't much of an issue when you're so much of a partisan party loyalist as to not care about much else. But then, this isn't the only issue on which you seem to refuse to update a thing.
But your insistence that Locke remain relevant only to a 17th century economy and the corporatists who today find succor in that is still interesting. All those Stalinist socialist tyrannies of Sweden, Switzerland, Scotland and Scandinavia aside, I would like to challenge you a bit in the only mantra that remains once your politics are peeled back of excessive dead-weight. You state the following as, what I presume is, your #1 2016 election issue:
"Free the American people to overcome problems through innovation, discovery and mostly free exchange of goods and services."
Name one specific thing standing in the way of that and how your non-Trump generic Republican will put an end to it.
I mean, I never realized the government had laws in place preventing me from innovating, discovering or freely exchanging goods and services. But maybe I'm just not looking hard enough to find such hindrances, or at least as hard as you are.
Put that honesty to work! Show us the barriers!
I mean, they must be more important than stopping another useless war, screwing over average Americans in order to enact the policies preferred by Goldman-Sachs and distracting bouts of bible thumping. So go and tell us how the next genericRepublican can put a rest to all that long enough to grant us the sorts of freedoms that you believe they haven't unleashed upon us despite 30 years of political dominance.
I can't wait.
There is no draft so registering women for it makes no sense. If there were a draft though, why not? They want combat roles, by god, they'll get them.
We'll see women blown to bits, their entrails hanging out and women can then ask themselves if its what they really wanted.
Selective Service should be abolished; in a modern, high-tech military, draftees make terrible soldiers and sailors.
But until Selective Service is abolished, both men and women should have to register.
Full disclosure: I'm a retired Navy officer.
buwaya said... "men are better at fighting and should man armies."
Men are better INFANTRY. Most women don't have the strength and endurance to charge up that hill with a rifle and a pack. (Some men don't, either.) But women do just as well as men as fighter pilots, and would probably do just as well as tank drivers, or artillery (the shells aren't THAT heavy...) or in support roles. And remember, 75% of the military is "support" roles; maintenance, supply, admin and medical.
mikeyes said: "I had a friend who noted that he was told that if he voted for Goldwater in 1963, that "we'd be in a war within four years." "I did and we were", he noted."
My father the Air Force Recruiter tells the same story. :-)
"A draft would have to be instituted by Congress and the President, so it is a good question to ask Presidential wanna-bes and sitting Senators. "
Selective Service exists NOW. The President would only need an E.O. to call people up. To ABOLISH it would take an act of Congress.
The syllabus for the SCOTUS opinion in Roster v. Goldberg that you linked to suggests the Court was equally as evasive as the Republican candidates in answering the question. The Court, cowards all, simply deferred to Congress and the Executive Branch, leaving the question for the (other) political branches of government to decide. Of course, that was in 1981. The Court was fortunate that the problem went away by itself, thereby relieving the Court of doing some actual legal heavy lifting.
"And Republicans wonder why they and their anti-science party isn't taken seriously."
Says the member of the left that believes in the healing power of crystals and that global warming is worth trashing to woeld economy to prevent a rise of 0.018 degrees by 2100.
Oh, goodness. "Rhythm and Balls" asks for specifics that are holding Americans back as he mentions "corpoartists" (sic) proving that he misses the point entirely. What a stupid, committed lying Leftist you are, poor devil.
Corporations love big government because government can limit competition and raise the barriers to entry that corporations most desire. But that is lost on you because you are a committed, stupid ideologue.
But I have named one thing, as requested.
Rhythm and Balls, Birkel
Please stop it. Just stop it.
Althouse, Unknown, Paddy, et al: Y'all are so cute when you rage against biology.
Post a Comment