This is the source of Anon’s concern, which is from the contract* I have with the American people:
If elected, I will “void” any military draft which might be passed by Congress by ordering all conscripts to follow only one order (from me, as their Commander in Chief): “Carry on with your lives as if you hadn’t been drafted, which means: don’t follow orders from anyone else but me – and this will be my only order to you.” [Conscription is a violation of the 13th amendment.]
I will address the issue of the 13th in a moment, but I wish to make my most important point right now. I could order all men drafted into the military to “Carry on with your lives as if you hadn’t been drafted” without invoking the 13th at all. A person becomes part of our nation’s military by swearing a mandatory oath to “obey the orders of the President of the United States.” That would be me, so I’d be entirely within my power to order a newly-drafted soldier to stay home.
To be sure, that same oath of enlistment states (and I’ll include the part quoted above): “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me…” My orders would override any orders of those “officers appointed” since I would outrank them.
Back in 2007, when I gave a speech on this matter (yes, I had run for US President back then as well), one questioner asked:
“If you ordered all newly-drafted soldiers to conduct themselves as if they were still civilians, would you have a problem with them being paid as soldiers? After all, that’s what they are…or at least, what they’re supposed to be.”
My answer: “If Congress sees fit to draft someone, that person deserves a government paycheck. If Congress doesn’t like paying soldiers to be civilians, they’ll have to find another way to (as the Constitution puts it) ‘raise and support’ an army.”
Naturally, that set off a firestorm of protest: “You’d be paying them to do nothing?!”
I explained: “Look, if I get elected, nobody would be able to claim they didn’t see this coming. This anti-draft provision is part of my electoral contract*. If people vote for me, they vote for my contract. It’s true the Constitution gives Congress the power to ‘raise and support armies,’ but that doesn’t give Congress the right to do so by all means bar none. If Congress wants to wage war, let them (and the moneyed interests they really represent) pay soldiers what they’re worth. I’ll have nothing to do with kidnapping citizens (as slave labor) to feed the War Machine.”
Now is a good time to quote the 13th amendment itself:
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The intent behind the 13th
Mainline jurists believe it was never the intent of the states, when ratifying the 13th, to deny the “right” of Congress to engage in conscription. If that were true, then the 13th should have stated in Section 1 (note my added, highlighted text):
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted or in the case of conscription for military service, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
For that matter, why were these words included in the 13th: “except as a punishment for crime…?” If it’s supposed to be so “obvious” that the 13th wasn’t intended to bar military conscription, it should be equally obvious that an amendment to free the slaves wasn’t meant to empty our prisons.
Intent is a huge concept in American law, so indulge me as I share an anecdote:
Decades ago, a union was certified to represent me as part of a newly-recognized bargaining unit. One of the first orders of business was to negotiate a contract with my employer (a state university). After the contract was ratified by the membership, I filed a grievance based on specific language in the contract, though I won’t bore you with the details here. The union refused to process my grievance, though I reminded them they were obligated to represent me. I even showed them the text of the contract, saying, “See? According to these terms, we’re entitled to 30 minutes more pay per day.”
The union rep responded by saying, “It doesn’t matter what the contract says [my emphasis]. If this goes to Arbitration or to a Court of Law, the first thing the judge will ask about that passage: What was the intent of your negotiating team underlying this language? And he’ll ask that of both sides – union leadership and management.”
My response? “None of this ‘underlying intent’ stuff was ever explained to the union’s members when we voted on the contract. We were just handed a copy, told to read it, and then vote yea or nay. So it seems irrelevant for the judge to ask about the negotiation teams’ intent when that was never shared with us to form the basis of our vote.”
When each of the states voted on ratification, were they supposed to, through some mysterious process, know the intent of the Congress which wrote that amendment, or were the states only expected to ratify the plain English of the amendment itself?
Bottom line? I believe our laws should say what they mean and mean what they say – as stated in plain written English. Intent and other secret meanings be damned. Translation? I’m a strict constructionist.
The State vs. the People
The State is becoming increasingly powerful, whereas the People are being ground down to an incoherent mass of powerlessness. The position I’ve adopted in my quest for the presidency is to reverse that trend – and We-the-People won’t have a better friend in that endeavor than me.
I aim to make it harder for the US to wage war, with the hope that we’ll think longer and harder before jumping into so many conflicts. If Congress knew they couldn’t rely on a large mass of slave labor – cynically calling them soldiers doing their “duty” – they’d be more judicious in how they spent our money in our defense. Even though Congress has too many members who really represent the interests of well-financed lobbyists, without access to a bottomless pit of cannon fodder, these lobbyists couldn’t be as persuasive.
Naturally, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of conscription, claiming (for instance) in this very flowery (but WRONG!) language from the Supreme Court as stated in 245 U.S. 366 (1918):
We are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
Huh? You may very well say, “Huh?” I did, when I first read that. What a pompous pile of pony poop! The Court cites “duty” – which is not a word anywhere mentioned in the Constitution except in its meaning as a “tax on imports.”
The Court also overlooked the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”Since the power to drag people off the street and force them to bear arms is not a power explicitly delegated to the United States, such power must remain with the states or the people. And the people, generally speaking, don’t want to fight in wars which favor the wealthy and corporate interests, and have nothing to do with our defense (unless you happen to think that the best defense is to be as offensive as possible).
Power and the consent to govern flow up from the people, not down from the Elite. Since the Constitution didn’t mention that the feds have the power to define “moral duty,” that power belongs to We-the-People in whom morality should most naturally be expected to reside.
The United States didn’t have a military draft until the Civil War broke out. And then the union government imposed an unfair draft which surely We-the-People would have opposed, had they the direct means to do so. At that time, a draftee could pay $300 so he could remain a civilian. Or he could pay another man to take his place. [So much for the "duty" all citizens have to serve in the armed forces, or is that only for those without the means to throw money at that duty and make it go away?]
And such abuse didn’t stop there:
· If you had religious objections, the draft board got to decide if your religion was bona fide.
· During the Vietnam War, the use of draft deferments for those in college was a useful “divide and conquer” tool.
· US defense was not at stake during WWI – our Elite just wanted to save the British aristocracy from ignominious defeat and to prevent bondholders from losing a fortune.
You will find that many of our military adventures have nothing to do with national security. They have far more to do with keeping US citizens in line and promoting the financial interests of the Elite.
Conclusion
I will readily agree that few if any scholars will agree with my view – that military conscription is a violation of the 13th amendment (not to mention jury duty, any kind of compulsory community service, and even forced attendance in public schools). However, with my candidacy, I am offering the American people a de facto interpretation, which even the Supreme Court couldn’t rule on, which will save their sons (and possibly daughters) from the clutches of a Military-Industrial Complex which seeks to expand its power at any price.
If you think it highly unlikely we’ll ever be faced with a resurrected draft, keep in mind:
· In a bad (and worsening economy), the government will seek a way to reduce the number of people seeking (civilian) jobs;
· Both major parties are very much in favor of compulsory national service - Rahm Emanuel had even co-written a book containing that theme. Both parties never tire of telling us what our “duty” is and how much we owe for the privilege of citizenship, while insisting such service will never become or dovetail into a draft. Don’t believe a word of this – they’re lying through their teeth!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party
“I hope We-the-People will come to see my political contract* to be one of the most potent weapons at their disposal” – Steve.
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* “my contract” – I am the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to offer a binding written contract to the voters, as explained here:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html
No comments:
Post a Comment