Trump: We Will Guard Our Border With Our Military

This is not a thread about Conscription. If you want to talk about that, why not make a new thread discussing it?

 

I can say the moon is made out of green cheese a million times, still doesn't make it fact. You have 9 UNELECTED tyrants saying that a couple of 5th grade words doesn't mean what it means. Look up "involuntary servitude". The draft is a mix of slavery and involuntary servitude, and can cost you your life.

You can argue with me, but you cannot change what is

 

Which might mean something, if we have actually had a draft in the last 45 years.

BTW, is it also slavery that they can draft doctors and nurses at any time? Literally at any time, no need to even involve the military. This is something that everybody in the health care field is aware of, but most ignore. It was even talked about during the Obama Care debates, which is one of the reasons Doctor Rand Paul was against it.

But nobody is talking about bringing back the draft (other then a few Democrats), so this is completely a non-issue. And has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

 

I was drafted, so it does mean something. And don't think they cannot bring it back. You just don't want to talk about a losing position of involuntary servitude. By the way, are you related to Hillary Clinton? That is what she said about guy in the military she got killed.

 

Based upon which of congress's constitutional legislative powers?

But it's still hilarious that the constitution forbids involuntary servitude and the SCROTUS says the exact opposite.

Sometimes I wonder why they even bothered to write down the constitution.

 

It is an Obligation, not involuntary servitude.

 

The founding fathers used Vattel's "Law of Nations" when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

It was Vattel's "Law of Nations" that ....
provides at least a partial legal basis for modern conscription in the United States. In the Selective Draft Law Cases (191, upholding the Selective Service Act of 1917, the court stated:

It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. Vattel, Law of Nations, book III, cc. 1 and 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Nations#cite_note-9

If you haven't read Vattel's who are clueless on interpenetrating the intent of the Constitution. To understand the U.S. Constitution you have to read Vattel's.

The only judges who don't have a copy of Vattel's sitting next to them while on the bench are liberal activist judges who ignore the intent of laws but make **** up by legislating from the bench.

Vattel's "The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns"

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Lieber_Collection/pdf/DeVattel_LawOfNations.pdf

To save you time, go to Book lll, Chap. l (pa.291) ( Of War )

It's all about war. You'll noticed that the rules of war and the Geneva Convention comes from Vattel's.

Very short excerpt:

Further reading:
Emmerich de Vattel's text, "The Law of Nations" was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions...-> http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html

https://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/vattels-law-of-nations-and-the-founding-fathers/

 

Show me that in the constitution!!!! It is NOT an obligation. My sister was not OBLIGATED to sign up and serve in the draft.

And take a little trip down to the post office TODAY. In this era of "equality", young men can be punished severely for not signing up for selective service, but women are STILL not required to fulfill their "obligation"????

Service in the military is NOT an obligation anywhere in our constitution. If it isn't there, it doesn't exist. Don't you even know basic law? You need to at least watch Judge Judy once in a while to get even the basics. There is no obligation ever mentioned anywhere. This is another case of the courts making SH** up that they know is not in the constitution, and you fall for it! Sad.

 

The Constitution doesn't mention a navy or murder or immigration or redistribution of wealth (free stuff), etc...

It was America's first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Jay who said what's not found in the Constitution or not defined in the Constitution that Vattel's "Law of Nations" will be used.

War, raising an army and conscription is mentioned in Book lll of the "law of Nations."

The SCOTUS has already upheld conscription by the federal government using Vattel's "Law of Nation" twice.

 

We have a Second Amendment; it is clearly, an expressly enumerated, States' sovereign right.

 

Oh my goodness, is this how you handle people that you are not able to defend against? You try to insult them?

Let me know in the future if you ever want to have an actual discussion. If all you are able to do is throw around insults, we have nothing to talk about.

 

Uhhh, that is the Tenth Amendment, not the Second.

This is the Second, which uses "state" to refer to the government as a whole. Not to individual "states".

In this case, the framers were using the definition of "state" to include "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." Which means the United States as a whole. The same type of wording is used elsewhere in the Constitution, including the following:

Article I, Section 9: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

You are confusing that apparently with the Tenth Amendment:

Of course, there are other interesting things found in the Constitution if you read it. For example, there is almost no provision for a US military in it. Instead, it is to be composed almost entirely of Militias, where each state selects their own officers. And that an individual can be accused and tried of Treason against their individual state.

Can you imagine say the Governor of Colorado making a water agreement with California that is unpopular at home, being charged with Treason against Colorado? Under the Constitution that is actually possible, under Article IV Section 2.

So under such a hypothetical crime, if said Governor fled to California they would be forced to return him to Colorado for trial. And no, it does not mean Treason against the United States, that is covered under Article III Section 3.

 

No, it doesn't. Only the right wing, claims that. Nobody on the left, takes the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.

Our Second Amendment recognizes and secures this States' sovereign right:

 

Where in the constitution does it say we follow Vattels "Law of Nations". It doesn't. more made up dung by 9 unelected tyrants.

 

What states right. The amendments were written to guarantee personal rights, and personal right in mind. The first part of the second amendment was a dual purpose. Lets write the second amendment using a possible first amendment wording.

A well regulated free press necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to write and speak their minds shall not be infringed.
Becomes real clear what they meant. In fact, if really applied right, you could own a Sherman tank with fully functional machine guns and 76 MM HE cannon and shells.

 

Where is it in the constitution??? I am OBLIGATED to go into slavery via involuntary servitude??? And what about the women, don't these equal creatures have the right to bleed and die right along next to their guys??

The supposed "Obligation" is simply so that old guys (and now women like Hillary) can spend young guys lives. Neither of the spenders are risking their own lives you should note.

 

When I meet someone I cannot defend against, maybe, but I have not found one yet!!

 

Nothing but begging the question. Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

 

The militia is Obligated; that is what you pledge your allegiance for.

 

Which is why more and more people like me who are in the middle are rejecting the "Left".

You do not get many who want to listen to you, when you say that anybody that does not agree with you should not be listened to.

But please carry on in your echo chamber.

 

lol. so what. i resort to the fewest fallacies, every time issues like these, come up.

 

It doesn't.
All you have to do is read the personal papers and journals of our founding fathers who routinely quoted Vattel's.

But unlike Great Britain that doesn't have a constitution, our founding fathers used Vattel's that said..."Each nation must be governed by a constitution, or a fundamental regulation, which determines the manner in which government functions."

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id2.html
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id5.html

 

The constitution says what it says, regardless of where it comes from, and the 13th amendment had nothing to do with Vattel, passed in the late 1860s, not an original amendment. Now where does it made an exception, which could have been added, BUT WASN'T. The government has only the enumerated powers in the constitution. Conscription does not exist in it. It was fake news then, fake news now. It doesn't exist only in the minds of those who don't like what the constitution really says.

 

But the 14th Amendment did and is based upon Vattel's.

THE CONSTITUTION, VATTEL, AND "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" -> http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah110.htm

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.ed...om/&httpsredir=1&article=1393&context=facpubs

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

LOYAL DENOMINATORISM AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: NORMATIVE DEFENSE AND IMPLICATIONS
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=djclpp

 

IMO, to be natural born citizens children should at the very least be born to legal residents of the US, and not to people visiting here as mere guests with no real ties to the country. I could even find myself satisfied if the parents could provide proof of residence for more than nine months, with some sort of positive involvement in our economy, like a job, even if they are not otherwise technically "legal".