Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

H.R. 5741

Reply to Thread
  1. intervention intervention is offline

    Calcutta
    India

    Posts: 250
    Joined: Jul 05

    Jul 27th, 2010 (7/27/2010 7:13pm)

    What the fack is going on? So confused man. Doubt this is real. Repost?
     
  2. MadProfesor MadProfesor is offline

    Los Angeles, CA
    United States

    Posts: 10,393
    Joined: Jan 06

    Jul 27th, 2010 (7/27/2010 7:17pm) in reply to intervention

    wtf? how is this not a massive news story??

    To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
    Edited By: MadProfesor Jul 27th, 2010 at 07:19 PM
  3. s1nnr s1nnr is offline will stab you

    Philadelphia, PA
    United States

    Posts: 9,642
    Joined: Mar 07

    Jul 27th, 2010 (7/27/2010 7:18pm) in reply to MadProfesor

    Slavery is back bitches
  4. cdmalgee cdmalgee is offline

    Lynchburg, VA
    United States

    Posts: 5,009
    Joined: Dec 05

    Jul 27th, 2010 (7/27/2010 7:19pm) in reply to s1nnr

    not constitutional, will never make it out of committee, and would be political suicide by anyone that votes for it.
    Edited By: cdmalgee Jul 27th, 2010 at 07:21 PM
    Reason: to add that it doesn't even have a cosponsor
  5. Hank H1LL Hank H1LL is offline

    Holy See (Vatican City State)

    Posts: 3,351
    Joined: Dec 08

    Jul 27th, 2010 (7/27/2010 7:22pm) in reply to cdmalgee

    yeah, that's not going anywhere. Rep. Ike Skelton won't be the most popular guy either.
    Edited By: Hank H1LL Jul 27th, 2010 at 07:22 PM
  6. Underdog Underdog is offline MVP of OT (self-proclaimed)

    Posts: 20,067
    Joined: Jan 05

    Jul 27th, 2010 (7/27/2010 7:24pm) in reply to intervention

    You'd be amazed at some of the bills that are created and never get out of committee.
  7. resilient resilient is offline

    Vanuatu

    Posts: 21,619
    Joined: Nov 06

    Jul 27th, 2010 (7/27/2010 7:30pm) in reply to cdmalgee

     
    Originally Posted by cdmalgee View Post

    not constitutional

    In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918).[52] The Court summarized the history of conscription in England and in colonial America, a history that it read as establishing that the Framers envisioned compulsory military service as a governmental power. It held that the Constitution's grant to Congress of the powers to declare war and to create standing armies included the power to mandate conscription. It rejected arguments based on states' rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution.

    Later, during the Vietnam War, a lower appellate court also concluded that the draft was constitutional. United States v. Holmes, 387 F.2d 781 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 936 (1968).[53] (Justice William O. Douglas, in voting to hear the appeal in Holmes, agreed that the government had the authority to employ conscription in wartime, but argued that the constitutionality of a draft in the absence of a declaration of war was an open question, which the Supreme Court should address.)

    During the World War I era, the Supreme Court allowed the government great latitude in suppressing criticism of the draft. Examples include Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)[54] and Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325 (1920).[55] In subsequent decades, however, the Court has taken a much broader view of the extent to which advocacy speech is protected by the First Amendment. Thus, in 1971 the Court held it unconstitutional for a state to punish a man who entered a county courthouse wearing a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" visible on it. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).[56] Nevertheless, protesting the draft by the specific means of burning a draft registration card can be constitutionally prohibited, because of the government's interest in prohibiting the "nonspeech" element involved in destroying the card. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).[57]

    In 1981, several men filed lawsuit in the case Rostker v. Goldberg, alleging that the Military Selective Service Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by requiring that men only and not also women register with the Selective Service System. The Supreme Court upheld the act, stating that Congress's "decision to exempt women was not the accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about women," that "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," and that "the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than 'equity.'"[58] Objectors stated that the majority of military roles were non-combat-related, however.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscri..._United_States

     
    Originally Posted by cdmalgee View Post

    will never make it out of committee, and would be political suicide by anyone that votes for it.

    pretty much what happened last time, although it did make it to a vote through an expedited parliamentary procedure, to be almost unanimously rejected:

    In 2003, several Democratic congressmen (Charles Rangel of New York, James McDermott of Washington, John Conyers of Michigan, John Lewis of Georgia, Pete Stark of California, Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii) introduced legislation that would draft both men and women into either military or civilian government service, should there be a draft in the future. The Republican majority leadership suddenly considered the bill, nine months after its introduction, without a report from the Armed Services Committee (to which it had been referred), and just one month prior to the 2004 presidential and congressional elections. The Republican leadership used an expedited parliamentary procedure that would have required a two-thirds vote for passage of the bill. The bill was defeated on October 5, 2004, with two members voting for it and 402 members voting against.
    Edited By: resilient Jul 27th, 2010 at 07:32 PM
     
  8. mordan mordan is offline

    NC
    United States

    Posts: 3,809
    Joined: Jul 05

    Jul 27th, 2010 (7/27/2010 7:32pm) in reply to resilient

    hahahaha leave it to more MSM fear mongering.......do you guys even have a clue how many of these type bills have been drawn up in the past.....last one being during the Bush Era....this is a common political practice, this bill will never see the light of day.

    edit: wtf Adi since when did you post in OT :) hope your doing well buddy
    Edited By: mordan Jul 27th, 2010 at 07:33 PM
     
  9. Tread Tread is offline

    Vaduz
    Liechtenstein

    Posts: 6,929
    Joined: Jun 05

    Jul 28th, 2010 (7/28/2010 12:58am) in reply to mordan

    Israel tho
  10. Thatislife Thatislife is offline

    Posts: 4,887
    Joined: Oct 05

    Jul 28th, 2010 (7/28/2010 1:06am) in reply to Tread

    One of those things that look good on paper.
Reply to Thread