Well, Fair IS Fair
I wonder how this is going to play with the “Social Justice Warrior” crowd?
Generals say women should have to register for draft
Specifically, the two “generals” in question were the Army Chief of Staff and Commandant of the Marine Corps.
In contrast, the SECNAV and Acting SECARMY merely stated “that the issue should be discussed.” Yeah, that’s some really decisive leadership from the Army’s and Navy’s senior civilians, isn’t it?
No surprise, though. Military leaders tend to speak plainly, and want to “do”. Politicians generally like to speak obliquely and prefer to “discuss” at length.
The linked article has more info. It’s worth the time to read.
Category: Legal, Military issues
So when are we gonna start seeing mandatory drafts of politician’s kids? Way I see things, they want us to occupy some hellhole in the desert for no good reason, the people who voted for it can afford to stick a little skin in the game.
From everything I read, the British Crown sent some good men to support their troops.
The Prince was quite the warrior from everything I read. It is not beneath anyone to serve in whatever capacity they can serve.
Trouble is that those that abuse the system the most are always the ones that will do the least to serve the rest that do serve…
I agree with Fastjack. No more exemptions. All the services need desk jockeys and shore duty pukes.
Better yet, put the freaking poly ticks on the front line!!!
Why NOT have women register for the draft at 18 y.o.?
The FemiNazis wanted all the equal perks and bennies. ‘Bout time they got some of the equal responsibilities.
IMO, there never has been a good reason for women to be exempted from the draft. If physically or by regulation unqualified for combat arms units and specialties, they could instead have been assigned to support specialties with lesser physical requirements and/or probability of direct combat.
Currently, the reason is legal. Only males between age 18 and 26 are required by law to register with Selective Service (50 USC 453). There is no legal requirement for women in that age group to register with Selective Service.
Congress will have to change Federal law for women to be subject to the draft. Not sure I’d recommend holding my breath waiting for that.
Indeed the largest protected class in the nation…can’t be kept out of anything, but not held to the same legal burdens…
Hardly makes a case for being truly equal under the law.
Selective service registration was re-instituted by President Peanut in 1980 and it was done with his recommendation to Congress that the funding allocation include women. The registration funds were approved but not the recommendation to include women. A few males affected by the registration filed suit, arguing that the male-only provision was gender discrimination and a violation of the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. They won—until the case got to the Supreme Court, that is. By a vote of 6-3, the majority held that the male-only requirement was constitutional because “Congress’ determination that any future draft would be characterized by a need for combat troops was sufficiently supported by testimony adduced at the hearings so that the courts are not free to make their own judgment on the question. And since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress’ decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) Did you see that second line? Right. The rationale for exempting women is now gone. No need to pack just yet, Suzie and Betty. It’s only registration and it won’t hurt a bit.
Considering all males must prove they have registered for selective service to be eligible for certain jobs, student loans, or benefits (mostly Federal related), why shouldn’t females be held to the same standard? I was required to prove my registration to get my current employment and that was following 10 years of active duty!
Oh, Hondo, it was always about breeding rights. Don’t you guys know that? Where have you been?
About fucking time, make sure their student loans are revoked if they fail to register as well.
Equal under the law should mean exactly that.
DITTO that AND they should also be disqualified from having a USG job as well if they fail to register.
You two know me!
What have I been saying? If all of us GIRLZZ who have willingly volunteered since WWI have done our share, why should succeeding generations of not be expected to do the same?
This is fine by me. You want real equality, do you, ladies? Then you’d better be prepared for what it REALLY means.
Amen, sister!
Damn straight sister!
“But that’s not the kind of equality we meant!” -Expected answer.
Tough shit, Toots. Tough taffy on your tinted toenails.
In my view, it’s put up or shut up.
And on behalf of Florence Green, any girl who thinks she doesn’t owe it to her country: JAM IT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Green
And THOSE are the kind of women that need wall-to-wall counseling, for being the useless tw*ts they are.
Sorry to have to say this to you little sister but Ladies have been doing this since day one and I mean starting with the revolution
Poetrooper, I’m more than aware of that. The point is that we ALL VOLUNTEERED. We were NOT compelled to do any of that except by our own sense of duty.
It’s not about women serving, per se. It’s about meeting the same requirements that men have to meet, by registering for the draft.
I can hear Phyllis Schlafly howling now.
Whoa. Did you just call Ex-PH2 *little sister*?
Solid fecal matter impacts the oscillating blade cooling device in 3…2..1.
Batten down the hatches.
I am just going to sit back and watch Ex with popcorn and some Not Your Father’s Rootbeer.
She has proven time and time again that her tongue and wit are sharper than surgical steel.
Now if someone decides to make with the terminal stupidity and threaten bodily harm to any of the wimmin of TAH, then I am going to set down my bottle and bowl and roll up my sleeves to commence to a beating on people.
Thank you, sweetie, but you’ll have to get in line… behind me.
JTM, there is a reason why I and some others refer to The ladies of TAH as The LIONESSES of TAH, they’ll tear up a troll like a pride of hunting Lionesses on prey animals.
Oops, if the commenter identified as *PaladanOO* is really Poetrooper, disregard my comment in it’s entirety.
Sorry.
Yeah, he can’t hide from me, either. 🙂 <3 <3 <3
Yep. Ya wanna run with the big dogs? Be prepared for some of those big fleas.
Well, that’s one way of “winning”a war. A Squad/Platoon/Battalion/Brigade of Women Draftees with PMS.
😉
Give ’em some Advil and tell them to stop their whining.
Fell of my chair laughing!
That’s hysterical.
Draft Pelosi; she can turn the enemy into a frog…
Or stone. . .
Or Green Thumb’s favorite: A Steaming Pile of Monkress. 🙂
Or a newt! I got better.
The only excuse that the Supreme Court could come up with in the 1981 decision Rostker v. Goldberg was that women, by law, couldn’t serve in combat. Writing for the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote
Now, that barrier has been removed. Goose, Gander.
Seems that way to me too, Jonn. But whenever the SCOTUS is involved, you really can’t predict their decisions a priori with too much accuracy.
Amen, Jonn… they asked for it, they’ll get it…
Who are “they?” Seems like the folks making the most noise historically and still today are not within the age range of males now required to register. Maybe you are suggesting that all the aging hippy females should register in spite of being slightly over qualified in the age department?
For what its worth, not sure I understand why anyone needs to register. Isn’t everyone within that age range already issued a SSAN? How many different agencies should be tracking each citizen?
Like I said, FINE BY ME. Draft ’em!!!
As one of my teenage daughters use to tell me Caring is Sharing.. well enjoy
“Sharing time is happy time”
Years ago, right after the draft was abolished, two women decided they would make a show of trying to register. They called the media and proceeded to walk into a post office demanding the forms to register.
The person behind the counter looked at them, told them that only males were required to register but if they wanted to register, they could.
He handed them the form, leaving the women stunned and the media without a story other than to report what had happened.
It was pretty cool seeing the looks on the women’s faces. It was a look of “how dare you not live up to the discrimination we are accusing you of!”
And I’ll bet they didn’t register.
If this happens the rule books are going to have to be re-written across the board.
Pregnancy, after the “card” is received as a disqualifier will have to be evaluated. And no artificial insemination, either. Legal standards will need to reworked to include UCMJ. So will the social systems in place need to be upgraded for the upcoming deferment and potential “baby boom”.
I believe this should happen, as it is fair. But a lot of the systems and rule sin place will have to be changed.
The way this is set up is that the good of a few will outweigh the good of the many. Think “special treatment and opportunity”.
And it seems our civilian leadership over the military are a bunch of whiny, gutless pussies.
I mean, we have always know that (for the most part”) but now others do as well.
I am curious as to what NOW or Hillary Clinton thinks? Might be a nice debate question. On the one hand she has to support equal rights for women as it is her calling card; and rightfully so(equal work = equal risk/pay). But on the other hand ALOT of voters (both male and female) are not going to dig this decision if it comes to fruition.
Curious as to how she would field it.
That’s easy to answer, Green Thumb. Clintoon hates the military and has no use for it. If she could, she’d get rid of it and spend the money on something less important.
Curious as to how she would field it.
She’d probably ask someone on her staff to send her some “talking points” at her “private” email address.
Now you know that comment won’t fly with some of the crowd from UC Berkley!
But I agree anyway,,,:)
The women will be lining up to register just like all of the immigrants (legal and illegal) are supposed to.
Uh-huh.
Did someone mention Wide Load? According to then-Secretary of Defense, Leon the Poinsettia, SHE was his “inspiration to approve the decision to end the ground combat exclusion rule for women in the military.” So, give credit where credit is due.
Source:http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/14/panetta-hillary-clinton-inspired-women-in-combat.html
The face that would sink a thousand ships…
Questions: (1) Why not change the age of the draft registration as well? Why keep it 18-25? (2) For future generations,why not register when one is born, male and female? (3) What woman/women/Woman’s organization is recommending this? So far, what I have read, it seems to be a man’s/men’s idea. Didn’t Rangel come up with a similiar proposal a few years back? Last: Are we truly ever going to use the Draft again and if so, will it be worth it, no matter the gender? Let’s see now…how many years has it been since we last used it? ( I’m not speaking of registering. I’m speaking of “winning” the magic “lottery” number).
The actual Vietnam period draft inductions ended 1 July 1973.
As of that date, a grand total of 646 men had been inducted for the year.
I guess I should source that statement.
The web site for the 15th Field Artillery Regiment has a whole section dedicated to the Draft and sources total numbers by year all the way back to WWI.
I’m not computer literate enough to do the linky thing. My apologies.
“As of that date, a grand total of 646 men had been inducted for the year.” That’s rather funny. I mean, how freakin’ unlucky is that? I wonder if any of them asked for an undraft, or is that de-draft under the circumstances.
They should.
Sure.
Should the Democrats make that a plank of their party platform?
That was meant as a reply and question to Lars above.
No, the republicans won’t either.
In truth, the draft is a bit fascist on the scale of modern political theory. It’s roots, however, are French republicanism and nationalism.
It is hard to justify conscription in modern political ethics. The modern state wages wars for too many reason that have little or nothing to do with existential threats to the state.
That being said, either we should require all able bodied citizens to register (regardless of gender), or none at all.
You DO NOT know me, Commissar.
I think you somehow believe you gain social prestige in this little internet tribal enclave by trolling me.
If it is true that you do gain social prestige from this then imagine what it says about what a shitty and petty little tribe you identify with.
However, I think most readers just think you are an idiot.
Since it wasn’t a Republican administration that pushed integration of females into the combat arms, what the Republicans should or should not do regarding this issue is beside the point.
Spare all of us the lecture on the history of the draft Lars, all of us took western civ at some point.
Still, it’s comforting to know to know that when you said “they should” you actually meant exactly the opposite.
I did not mean the opposite. I said women should register for the draft. How does that mean the opposite?
If the draft is “a bit fascist” and isn’t required to deal with “existential threats” to the nation (like you know what those are), I can’t imagine you are justifying it beyond “well my party has given me this pooch to screw, better get busy”. So I suppose that I gave you the benefit of the doubt that “no one should” is your actual position, and that that was what you actually believed.
Actually, Taylor, conscription dates to the Babylonian Empire under Hammurabi. It was called “Ilkum”. That system included certain “deferments” and the practice of hiring substitutes (made illegal by the Code of Hammurabi, but apparently still commonly done).
Conscrption was also practiced in China’s Qin Kingdom, and in Medieval times by numerous powers. It far predates the French Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Conscription_in_pre-modern_times
I swear, for someone who’s “well educated”, you often really don’t seem to know Jack. And you often also seem too damn lazy to even try to learn.
Hondo, I just love it when you deflate some pompous ass so skillfully.
Thanks, Ex-PH2. I also find doing that enjoyable.
For Taylor’s inane commentary here at TAH it generally only takes a rudimentary Internet search and <5 min simple research to confirm he's full of it. So doing that is pretty easy as well.
Fuck off, Hondo. You completely missed the point of my post and instead equivocated on the word “conscription” and focused on some pedantic bullshit that you googled on Wikipedia.
Blow it out your flatus vent, Taylor. And kiss mine.
Your comment’s “point”, such as it was, was so predictable given your past it needed two words: “draft fascist”. As usual, you took 4 paragraphs to make your point – one of which was factually incorrect. And your “point” that conscription is “a bit fascist” is bullsh!t. Conscription been used by every type of political entity on earth – dictatorships, monarchies, Marxist regimes, and democracies. The modern “draft” is merely an implementation.
You’re simply p!ssed because you were shown again to be full of it. Contrary to your assertion above, in fact conscription predates the French revolution by somewhere around 3.5 millennia, minimum. You’re just p!ssed because I called you on being factually wrong.
In short, you were full of it. Again.
Enjoy being proven wrong as much as I enjoyed proving you full of crap. And kindly FOAD.
On the spectrum of modern political thought the draft is fascist. The justification for it in American political thought is arguably socialist.
Not my fault that you seem incapable of understand what I am saying.
I was not factually wrong. I had googled the same wiki article and read it prior to my post. I did not include ancient conscription because ancient conscription and the justification used by ancient states was not part of the basis for the existence of our draft.
You are a classic anti-intellectual asshat.
You DON’T know me, Commissar.
So damn obnoxious.
I was talking about the modern state and the political theories that justify modern conscription.
And don’t act like you “know” shit. You googled the wiki article. And you completely ignored the context of my comment which was focused on modern political theory, the justification for the existence and legitimacy of the DRAFT. Compulsory military service is ancient. But the justification for the draft in modern political theory comes from the French.
Somehow I doubt you will understand my point.
The draft does not seem to be supported under the constitution. Yet the supreme court ruled the draft constitutional.
How?
Post enlightenment French political theory. French political thought, particularly the emphasis on the duty of the individual to sacrifice for the good of the state, justified the draft and it was also part of the body of work that contributed to our conception of government under the social contract.
Not even a nice try. Try reading the following SCOTUS decision from 1918. Who knows, maybe you’re even capable of comprehending it.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/selective-draft.htm
The Constitutionality of the draft has been settled for almost a century. Deal with it.
“Yet the supreme court ruled the draft constitutional.”
Reading comprehension much?
YOU don’t know me, Commissar.
That’s hilarious coming from you, dickshit.
“Reading comprehension much?”
Certainly – better than you, if you read the same article I cited before you wrote your factually incorrect comments above.
If you’re talling the truth, that means you wrote your comment above even after reading material that directly contradicted your statement. That smacks of either being deliberately untruthful or p!ss-poor reading comprehension. You choose; I can believe either.
Regarding the Constitutional issue – from your comments, you don’t seem to understand that you’re arguing a moot point. That was the whole point of my prior comment.
That’s kinda what “settled law for nearly 100 years – deal with it” meant. Or is that beyond your comprehension, Berkeley-boi?
It’s also more polite than directly calling you a whiny crybaby who complains about reality when it isn’t what you want it to be. But I guess I can do that if you’d prefer.
Just curious about something, Lars, you poodle. Well, a couple of things, really.
1- You could try proofreading your own posts before you click ‘reply’.
AND,
2- You fail to follow or acknowledge anyone else’s response with anything other than contempt, so please let us know if you ever pull your head out of your own anal orifice. Right now, it’s stuck halfway up your sigmoid to the second turn.
The best case for this would be a woman in every state (18-25) requesting to register and, of course, being denied. The suit would be a dandy and would raise some interesting arguments. For one, the women could argue that they are being denied the right to register for a potential draft on the exclusive basis of their gender. At the same time, a man from which state can claim he is being discriminated against on the basis of gender, that the gov’t is requiring something of him that it is not requiring of women purely on the basis of gender. Ya gotta love this stuff. Ya really do.
Two women went to the post office, some time back, to do just that. See here:
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=64155&cpage=1#comment-2792294
Look, there are plenty of women who would try to get out it, just like there are plenty of men who have done that. I think they should put some time in, regardless.
This is 50 years later, and I still remember the doctor who ran away to Canada when he got his draft notice. He was a pathologist, not a surgeon. If ever there was someone who would be unlikely to be sent to a war zone, it was him. He’d have ended up at Walter Reed or some other research facility, for Pete’s sake, but he ran away.
Was that . . . pathologist’s favorite color yellow by any chance?
Well, he did occasionally wear sort of pale yellow ties, IIRC. I always hoped I’d run into him again, so I could buy him a drink and throw it right in his face.
Here you go, anyone. The decision was unanimous. So, let’s have no more talk about conscription being unconstitutional. And “by anyone” I mean anyone who finds it useful or necessary to rebut a contrary assertion. Me, I see no need right now, as it would be akin to driving nails into a 2×4 with a fresh marshmallow.
Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)