NationStates Jolt Archive

I was having a discussion about Homeland Security with my Civil and Criminal Law teacher when we got to the USA PATRIOT Act. He said that "History has shown that during wartime, civil rights can be limited, revoked, and/or denied."
I then stated that since the Iraq War is over, and the U.S. is currently occupying Iraq, then the government shouldn't have the power to suspend these civil rights. He then stated that the Iraq War is not over, and (to make a long story short) I discovered that there really was no formal declaration of surrender from Iraq to the U.S., nor any peace treaty/ armistice/ ceasefire (anything like that), just George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, and that a month before "the war is effectively over [emphasis added]."
So is then is the Iraq War still going on? Because I honestly thought that the U.S. was just occupying Iraq.

I don't suppose you mentioned the fact that Iraq is quite some distance away from the US?

Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to decide if a war is over or not when it's illegal in the first place....

Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to decide if a war is over or not when it's illegal in the first place....

No, I think it should be quite easy.. Are the armed forces engaged in combat with their enemy? If yes then there's probably a war going on..

I was having a discussion about Homeland Security with my Civil and Criminal Law teacher when we got to the USA PATRIOT Act. He said that "History has shown that during wartime, civil rights can be limited, revoked, and/or denied."
I then stated that since the Iraq War is over, and the U.S. is currently occupying Iraq, then the government shouldn't have the power to suspend these civil rights. He then stated that the Iraq War is not over, and (to make a long story short) I discovered that there really was no formal declaration of surrender from Iraq to the U.S., nor any peace treaty/ armistice/ ceasefire (anything like that), just George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, and that a month before "the war is effectively over [emphasis added]."
So is then is the Iraq War still going on? Because I honestly thought that the U.S. was just occupying Iraq.

The "war" against the sovereign nation of Iraq, and it's government is over. As it was replaced with a more "desired" way of running.

What you have is a counter insurgency warfare operation against some groups, possibly classed as ethnic. Not against Iraq as a nation. This is similar to what the British faced, and were successful at, in Malaya in the 1950's. So yes, it is still war, just not against the original target.

No, I think it should be quite easy.. Are the armed forces engaged in combat with their enemy? If yes then there's probably a war going on..

But does the enemy have to be an actual organised military? Or would you say police are at war with criminals?

No, I think it should be quite easy.. Are the armed forces engaged in combat with their enemy? If yes then there's probably a war going on..

I mean legitimate wars (like World War 2 and, sadly enough, the Iraq War AKA Second Gulf War), where Congress actually declared war on the enemy nation. Not like Korea or Vietnam. Well, the Iraq War is supposedly legitimate b/c Congress declared war... right?

But does the enemy have to be an actual organised military? Or would you say police are at war with criminals?

War on Drugs? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs)

But does the enemy have to be an actual organised military? Or would you say police are at war with criminals?

Okay, I may have been oversimplifying things a tad.. but then again, could you not consider the insurgents to be criminals with a political agenda?

It's all bullshit semantics, likely used to baffle with bullshit. It's a death field and a money pit and promising a positive outcome, regardless of any rising above the total chaos after a surge, is 100% conjecture that could easily be flipped.

There was never a proper declaration of war either, other than Bush's speech. The US just sorta assumed that it wasn't necessary since various UNSC resolutions provided for the right to commence military action.

If the war was over we wouldn't have much use to stay there. Guns are still being fired, people are still being killed. Peace is far from our reach.

Okay, I may have been oversimplifying things a tad.. but then again, could you not consider the insurgents to be criminals with a political agenda?

Well, yes, that's my point. Criminals are not the same as an enemy force.

Gulf war II ended in 3 weeks with the toppling of Saddams government

course what your teacher says makes no sense but I figure this thread has till page 3 before its Bush did 911 and such

There was never a proper declaration of war either, other than Bush's speech. The US just sorta assumed that it wasn't necessary since various UNSC resolutions provided for the right to commence military action.

Precisely.

I was having a discussion about Homeland Security with my Civil and Criminal Law teacher when we got to the USA PATRIOT Act. He said that "History has shown that during wartime, civil rights can be limited, revoked, and/or denied."
I then stated that since the Iraq War is over, and the U.S. is currently occupying Iraq, then the government shouldn't have the power to suspend these civil rights. He then stated that the Iraq War is not over, and (to make a long story short) I discovered that there really was no formal declaration of surrender from Iraq to the U.S., nor any peace treaty/ armistice/ ceasefire (anything like that), just George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, and that a month before "the war is effectively over [emphasis added]."
So is then is the Iraq War still going on? Because I honestly thought that the U.S. was just occupying Iraq.

There was no formal declaration of war, so how can the POTUS have war powers and how can we be at war? Furthermore, a war that has not officially begun cannot be ended officially. Besides, I challenge the assumption that rights can be restricted during war. There is no Constitutional authorization for the government to restrict rights. Pay particular attention to amendments 9 & 10 in the Bill of Rights.

As a side note, the Constitution is effectively a contract. The federal government has repeatedly violated this contract. Are We The People still bound to a contract when the other party (the government) has violated that contract?

*edit* The "authorization to use military force" act was not a declaration of war. It was an unlawful abdication by Congress of their power to declare war. It's not like we are without precedent for a proper declaration of war. Afghanistan and Iraq are both illegal military actions. So were Bosnia, Korea, Vietnam, and who knows how many other military actions over the past century.

Since war was never declared, the war never started.

The conflict is not over, as we can see by the whole "people still being blown up" thing.

I challenge the assumption that rights can be restricted during war. There is no Constitutional authorization for the government to restrict rights. Pay particular attention to amendments 9 & 10 in the Bill of Rights.

I think this is something that shouldn't be missed. Just because history has shown that rights are sometimes curtailed during times of war doesn't mean that it's legal or correct to do so.

Everyone keeps saying that there was no formal declaration of war, where is proof of this?? Just saying b/c my teacher needs sources, and so do I.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.That's the definition of the word war.
Note the underlined. So, for whoever asked if the police combating crime every day could be termed as a war, the answer is yes. It is a war by literal definition.
The War in Iraq is also defined correctly. It is a war by literal definition.

Everyone keeps saying that there was no formal declaration of war, where is proof of this?? Just saying b/c my teacher needs sources, and so do I.

Congressional record. Only congress can declare war. Congress never did this, they merely gave the president expanded power. As congress never officially declared war, there is no war.

There has not been a declared war since WWII.

eta: actually, there have only been five declared wars in US history: WWII, WWI, Spanish-American, Mexican-American, and War of 1812

That's the definition of the word war.
Note the underlined. So, for whoever asked if the police combating crime every day could be termed as a war, the answer is yes. It is a war by literal definition.
The War in Iraq is also defined correctly. It is a war by literal definition.

You're technically correct.

A police officer who arrests a criminal in Southern Georgia (to name a random Continental location) is at war with this criminal... technically.

That being said, however, we are not fighting an organized, and structured enemy force. we are fighting something similar to a militia.

It is, by technical dictionary definition a war. I would like to note that the US definition, and the Webster definition might have some variation, note that Webster does not define a war as including a Declaration of War by the Congress of the United States of America, which, is what the American definition is. What's more is that I am sure the OP was really looking for more than merely a retelling of Webster... but you know, way to miss the point entirely.

The "war" against the sovereign nation of Iraq, and it's government is over. As it was replaced with a more "desired" way of running.

What you have is a counter insurgency warfare operation against some groups, possibly classed as ethnic. Not against Iraq as a nation. This is similar to what the British faced, and were successful at, in Malaya in the 1950's. So yes, it is still war, just not against the original target.

Indeed the Brits succeeded in the Malay Emergency. One very important reason was they were able to put appropriate force levels in place - the "magic ratio appears to be 20+ troops per 1000 population. The US has not ever had that many soldiers in Iraq, nor would it realistically be able to do so.

I mean legitimate wars (like World War 2 and, sadly enough, the Iraq War AKA Second Gulf War), where Congress actually declared war on the enemy nation. Not like Korea or Vietnam. Well, the Iraq War is supposedly legitimate b/c Congress declared war... right?

Nope.


There was no formal declaration of war, so how can the POTUS have war powers and how can we be at war? Furthermore, a war that has not officially begun cannot be ended officially. Besides, I challenge the assumption that rights can be restricted during war. There is no Constitutional authorization for the government to restrict rights. Pay particular attention to amendments 9 & 10 in the Bill of Rights.

As a side note, the Constitution is effectively a contract. The federal government has repeatedly violated this contract. Are We The People still bound to a contract when the other party (the government) has violated that contract?

*edit* The "authorization to use military force" act was not a declaration of war. It was an unlawful abdication by Congress of their power to declare war. It's not like we are without precedent for a proper declaration of war. Afghanistan and Iraq are both illegal military actions. So were Bosnia, Korea, Vietnam, and who knows how many other military actions over the past century.

Indeed.

Everyone keeps saying that there was no formal declaration of war, where is proof of this?? Just saying b/c my teacher needs sources, and so do I.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

regardless if it was legal to go there, we are there. It would also be wrong of use to leave with out trying to rebuild that shite.

regardless if it was legal to go there, we are there. It would also be wrong of use to leave with out trying to rebuild that shite.

We tried. We failed. Time to go home. Failure is an option.


Quote:
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

That's the definition of the word war.
Note the underlined. So, for whoever asked if the police combating crime every day could be termed as a war, the answer is yes. It is a war by literal definition.
The War in Iraq is also defined correctly. It is a war by literal definition.

No. The legal definition of a word does not equal the colloquial or literary definition. Check Black's or some other law dictionary and see what it says.

I was having a discussion about Homeland Security with my Civil and Criminal Law teacher when we got to the USA PATRIOT Act. He said that "History has shown that during wartime, civil rights can be limited, revoked, and/or denied."
I then stated that since the Iraq War is over, and the U.S. is currently occupying Iraq, then the government shouldn't have the power to suspend these civil rights. He then stated that the Iraq War is not over, and (to make a long story short) I discovered that there really was no formal declaration of surrender from Iraq to the U.S., nor any peace treaty/ armistice/ ceasefire (anything like that), just George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, and that a month before "the war is effectively over [emphasis added]."
So is then is the Iraq War still going on? Because I honestly thought that the U.S. was just occupying Iraq.

Also, there was no formal declaration of war by congress. Technically, we are not at war.

Also, there was no formal declaration of war by congress. Technically, we are not at war.

the legal definition of war is between two states.
The state of Iraq in this case is our ally. we are just helping them be police officers. so no need to curtail domestic freedoms for that. now the war on terror who knows.

the legal definition of war is between two states.
The state of Iraq in this case is our ally. we are just helping them be police officers. so no need to curtail domestic freedoms for that. now the war on terror who knows.

Again, no declaration of war. Though, to be fair, you can't really declare war on an emotion anyway.

The Patriot Act was signed into law October 26, 2001. The invasion of Iraq began March 20, 2003. Ergo a state of war with Iraq (whatever its legality) can't be the justification for the signing of the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was signed into law October 26, 2001. The invasion of Iraq began March 20, 2003. Ergo a state of war with Iraq (whatever its legality) can't be the justification for the signing of the Patriot Act.

Very good. I recommend this to the OP as the simplest refutation.

The Patriot Act was signed into law October 26, 2001. The invasion of Iraq began March 20, 2003. Ergo a state of war with Iraq (whatever its legality) can't be the justification for the signing of the Patriot Act.

Well, the 'War on Terror' stemming from 9-11 and the fear generated from it is what justified the Patriot Act.

And it justified (as far as selling to the public goes) the war on Iraq as well, as being an extension.

To the administration's view, we have been 'at war' since 9/11. Iraq is just a battleground.

I was having a discussion about Homeland Security with my Civil and Criminal Law teacher when we got to the USA PATRIOT Act. He said that "History has shown that during wartime, civil rights can be limited, revoked, and/or denied."I then stated that since the Iraq War is over, and the U.S. is currently occupying Iraq, then the government shouldn't have the power to suspend these civil rights. He then stated that the Iraq War is not over, and (to make a long story short) I discovered that there really was no formal declaration of surrender from Iraq to the U.S., nor any peace treaty/ armistice/ ceasefire (anything like that), just George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, and that a month before "the war is effectively over [emphasis added]."
So is then is the Iraq War still going on? Because I honestly thought that the U.S. was just occupying Iraq.

Sorry, but I can't get past the bold. Rights have been limited, revoked, and/or denied during wartime, but that doesn't mean they should be. To the contrary, our history of abusing civil rights during wartime is something of which we should be ashamed.

Sorry, but I can't get past the bold. Rights have been limited, revoked, and/or denied during wartime, but that doesn't mean they should be. To the contrary, our history of abusing civil rights during wartime is something of which we should be ashamed.

Well, it was written 'can be' not 'should be.' I don't think the former translates into the latter, but rather was referring to how generally it is easier for a government (and/or more accepted by the frightened populace) to limit civil rights during times of war and such, than in times of peace and quiet.

Well, it was written 'can be' not 'should be.' I don't think the former translates into the latter, but rather was referring to how generally it is easier for a government (and/or more accepted by the frightened populace) to limit civil rights during times of war and such, than in times of peace and quiet.

Only if you read "can be" to mean "legally impermissible but the government can get away with it anyway."

In which case, I still object that the government shouldn't, legally can't, and wouldn't be able to if people stood up for their rights.

In some countries, like, mine (Australia), the government has the legal right to do so.

iN Australia's case, the govenrment is given the power to ignore our constitution during wartime.

This is needed though. If another war was to break out, we couldn't afford a bunch of cowardly hippies hiding behind the excuse of a moral obligation not to fight, could we? No, we'd need to draft them to fight for our country.

This is needed though. If another war was to break out, we couldn't afford a bunch of cowardly hippies hiding behind the excuse of a moral obligation not to fight, could we? No, we'd need to draft them to fight for our country.
Something tells me that motivation is actually a factor in how well and for how long a soldier will be fighting...

In some countries, like, mine (Australia), the government has the legal right to do so.

iN Australia's case, the govenrment is given the power to ignore our constitution during wartime.

This is needed though. If another war was to break out, we couldn't afford a bunch of cowardly hippies hiding behind the excuse of a moral obligation not to fight, could we? No, we'd need to draft them to fight for our country.
A) There is a difference between a draft and curtailing rights such as free speech, free press, due process, etc.
B) Instead of having people who are opposed to the war and/or government protesting at home, you will have them fighting. For a war and/or government they do not support. Something tells me, they won't be fighting as well as they can. They will fight to survive, probably. But that isn't quite the same. Instead, you get higher death tolls as you drop people in to act as targets and shields, rather than soldiers.
C) Moral/ethical opposition to a war does not equal being cowardly.

But surely in a time of war, the opinion of the state is more important than the opinion of individuals in a time of war?

After all, in wartime the state acts in the best interests of all it's inhabitiants, while an individual usually only thinks of themself.

But surely in a time of war, the opinion of the state is more important than the opinion of individuals in a time of war?

After all, in wartime the state acts in the best interests of all it's inhabitiants, while an individual usually only thinks of themself.

The state acts in what it considers the best interests of the state. This may or may not be in the best interests of all, some, many, most, or few of its inhabitants. There are two sides to a war, revealing diametrically opposing points. Can both sides be working in the best interest of all residents?

The American Revolution was not in the best interest of every colonist. It was in the best interest of the American state.
Englands role was not in the best interst of every citizen, but that of the state.

The state will, by and large, fight for its power and survival, regardless of the implications to all citizens.

But surely in a time of war, the opinion of the state is more important than the opinion of individuals in a time of war?
My grandfather lived in Berlin in 1945. My great-grandparents hid him in the attic because they didn't feel his participation in the Volkssturm's HJ-battalions was a good idea.

Cowardliness? Unacceptable selfishness?

No, I would suggest that the call as to whether or not the state is doing something that is actually in the common interest is up to the individual judging it. The state is never going to stop just because what it's doing is ridiculously stupid.

there is not and never was an iraq war, just the u.s. killing about a million iraqi civilians, and throwing away the lives of four thousand american military troops to do so, on the pretense of twenty guys (who never had anything to do with iraq as far as anyone knows) ripping off four airplanes and knocking down two and a half buildings, killing aproximately 3000 american civilians as an excuse to do so. basically oil and bush's petty vengence against hussain.

all a combination of bid for a u.s. dictatorship of the entire planet and a means of attempting to scare u.s. voters into perpetuating and entrenching organized crime, in the form of corporate economic intrests' control of america's political proccess.

there is not and never was, a congressionally approved, or even otherwise, formal declairation of war against iraq. simply an unauthorized unilateral use of military force on the part of a loose cannon presidency.

just total insanity and making the world a more brutal and dangerous place so republicans could get elected and screw up and destroy america which they very nearly have.

...just the u.s. killing about a million iraqi civilians...
That's just stupid. Even those studies that place the figure that high (and many don't) attribute most of the deaths to fighting between Iraqis and terrorist attacks. In which case the US invasion provided the climate within which the deaths occured, but that's hardly the same as "the US killed them".

That's just stupid. Even those studies that place the figure that high (and many don't) attribute most of the deaths to fighting between Iraqis and terrorist attacks. In which case the US invasion provided the climate within which the deaths occured, but that's hardly the same as "the US killed them".

what's stupid is the lying pretense excuse for doing so.

In some countries, like, mine (Australia), the government has the legal right to do so.

iN Australia's case, the govenrment is given the power to ignore our constitution during wartime.

This is needed though. If another war was to break out, we couldn't afford a bunch of cowardly hippies hiding behind the excuse of a moral obligation not to fight, could we? No, we'd need to draft them to fight for our country.

Sounds like Australia needs a new constitution and a new government. Where should I send the Guy Fawkes masks?

A) There is a difference between a draft and curtailing rights such as free speech, free press, due process, etc.

How so?

How so?

Because the draft is permitted by the constitution. By giving congress the right to raise an army, they are given the right to draft. The restriction placed upon this is that army funding must be reapproved every two years. It isn't coincidential that the house elections come every two years, safeguarding against a permanent draft if it is not the will of the people.

Restrictions on speech, etc. are explicitly not permitted, except by supreme court decision.

One is constitutional, one is not. (and yes, I'm being US centric. Sue me :) )

Because the draft is permitted by the constitution. By giving congress the right to raise an army, they are given the right to draft. The restriction placed upon this is that army funding must be reapproved every two years. It isn't coincidental that the house elections come every two years, safeguarding against a permanent draft if it is not the will of the people.

Restrictions on speech, etc. are explicitly not permitted, except by supreme court decision.

One is constitutional, one is not. (and yes, I'm being US centric. Sue me :) )

Giving permission to raise an army is not the same thing as giving permission to enslave people to fight in it. We have this little ban on involuntary servitude unless it's punishment for a crime.

I was having a discussion about Homeland Security with my Civil and Criminal Law teacher when we got to the USA PATRIOT Act. He said that "History has shown that during wartime, civil rights can be limited, revoked, and/or denied."
I then stated that since the Iraq War is over, and the U.S. is currently occupying Iraq, then the government shouldn't have the power to suspend these civil rights. He then stated that the Iraq War is not over, and (to make a long story short) I discovered that there really was no formal declaration of surrender from Iraq to the U.S., nor any peace treaty/ armistice/ ceasefire (anything like that), just George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, and that a month before "the war is effectively over [emphasis added]."
So is then is the Iraq War still going on? Because I honestly thought that the U.S. was just occupying Iraq.
Haha yer teacher works for the NSA and yer off to Gitmo.

But surely in a time of war, the opinion of the state is more important than the opinion of individuals in a time of war?

After all, in wartime the state acts in the best interests of all it's inhabitiants, while an individual usually only thinks of themself.

"The state" is a legal fiction. It is not a self-aware entity capable of acting on its own. The state only acts in the best interests of whoever controls the state. The US is not under the control of the people. At the national level, government is under the de facto control of the major party leaders, special interest lobbyists, and the military-industrial complex.

Because the draft is permitted by the constitution. By giving congress the right to raise an army, they are given the right to draft. The restriction placed upon this is that army funding must be reapproved every two years. It isn't coincidential that the house elections come every two years, safeguarding against a permanent draft if it is not the will of the people.

Restrictions on speech, etc. are explicitly not permitted, except by supreme court decision.

One is constitutional, one is not. (and yes, I'm being US centric. Sue me :) )

Nowhere does the constitution authorize compulsory service. The draft is nothing more than government-sanctioned involuntary servitude, aka slavery. Also, be careful about relying on the Supreme Court. 5 out of 9 deciding something is no guarantee that the decision is correct.

Well, the 'War on Terror' stemming from 9-11 and the fear generated from it is what justified the Patriot Act.

To the administration's view, we have been 'at war' since 9/11. Iraq is just a battleground.

Agreed, but the "War on Terror" is even less of a war, legally speaking, than the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It has no defined enemy, no obvious conditions for victory, and no foreseeable end. It's an even poorer justification for an extended suspension of civil liberties.

Giving permission to raise an army is not the same thing as giving permission to enslave people to fight in it. We have this little ban on involuntary servitude unless it's punishment for a crime.

Nowhere does the constitution authorize compulsory service. The draft is nothing more than government-sanctioned involuntary servitude, aka slavery. Also, be careful about relying on the Supreme Court. 5 out of 9 deciding something is no guarantee that the decision is correct.

When drafted, you are paid. It isn't slavery.

Moreover, the draft has been challenged in various ways in several SCOTUS cases, and upheld in its various forms. SCOTUS decision=constitutional law.

Most important to your argument is Butler v Perry (240 US 328 [1916]), in which the SCOTUS found
[The 13th Amendment] introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

This was reinforced two years later with Arver v US (245 US 366 [1918]):
[A]s 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.

The draft is not involuntary servitude within the United States.

When drafted, you are paid. It isn't slavery.


Is it voluntary?

Edit: Because I don't see anywhere the 13th amendment mentions compensation being a deciding factor in whether or not one can be pressed into involuntary servitude.

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of 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 the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Is it voluntary?

Edit: Because I don't see anywhere the 13th amendment mentions compensation being a deciding factor in whether or not one can be pressed into involuntary servitude.

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of 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 the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Doesn't matter, given the Supreme Court decisions. Involuntary or not, it doesn't fall within the realm of "involuntary servitude" as outlined by the constitution and relevant SCOTUS decisions, and therein is the difference between the draft and the abridgement of first amendment rights in wartime.

Doesn't matter, given the Supreme Court decisions. Involuntary or not, it doesn't fall within the realm of "involuntary servitude" as outlined by the constitution and relevant SCOTUS decisions, and therein is the difference between the draft and the abridgement of first amendment rights in wartime.

The supreme court can say what they want about matters of law, but in what we like to call "reality" a draft didn't become any less servitude or any more voluntary. Thus it remains in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the 13th amendment. If for some reason the USSC declared the sky red would it suddenly change color?

The supreme court can say what they want about matters of law, but in what we like to call "reality" a draft didn't become any less servitude or any more voluntary. Thus it remains in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the 13th amendment. If for some reason the USSC declared the sky red would it suddenly change color?

There are two seperate aspects of reality at play.

I agree with you that the day-to-day reality of life is that the draft is involuntary servitude. However, the legal reality is that it is not.

We have freedom of speech. In day-to-day reality, this means you can say anything and do anything without restrictions from the government. The legal reality is that this is not the case.

Interesting question!

Can something be officially over when it was never officially declared to have started?

I mean, sure, one can say that it started with the U.S. bombing and invading Iraq - yet I doubt that the war can be called anything but over. As long as the U.S. keeps troops there and those troops are attacked, I guess the war is still going on.

When there's no more violence against the U.S. occupying forces, then the war's over. I guess.


Mars Attacks!
70 years

When drafted, you are paid. It isn't slavery.

so as long as the blacks were fed and sheltered, they weren't slaves? I call BS on this.

Moreover, the draft has been challenged in various ways in several SCOTUS cases, and upheld in its various forms. SCOTUS decision=constitutional law.

no. the constitution = constitutional law. The SCOTUS has no authority to override the constitution. If I do not volunteer for a form of servitude, and am pressed into service anyway against my will, it is involuntary servitude. How hard is that to understand? Suppose I kidnap a woman and rape her, but when I'm done I leave her a million dollars. It's still rape, not solicitation of a prostitute or a simple extramarital affair. Payment does not negate a criminal agression against another person.

Where does the government, which allegedly derives its power from the people, gain the authority to claim ownership of the people to the extent of forcing them to risk death in armed conflict? Particularly when the alternative is to do that or be jailed and assessed with massive fines.

no. the constitution = constitutional law.
Who interprets the Constitution again?


Where does the government, which allegedly derives its power from the people, gain the authority to claim ownership of the people to the extent of forcing them to risk death in armed conflict?
I'd go with the Social Contract on that one.

so as long as the blacks were fed and sheltered, they weren't slaves? I call BS on this.Slaves were also killed if they didn't do their work. You have a choice not to serve...it isn't a good choice, but it isn't quite "death"



no. the constitution = constitutional law.
Wrong. Supreme court decisions are interpretations of the constitution, and as such, become constitutional law. They are the final authority on what is, and is not, constitutional.
The SCOTUS has no authority to override the constitution.
You are right in the fact that they cannot legislate. However, if congress passed a law that said "There is no more free speech", and the SCOTUS said "This is constitutional because of X, Y, and Z", then it is a constitutional law.

If I do not volunteer for a form of servitude, and am pressed into service anyway against my will, it is involuntary servitude. How hard is that to understand? Suppose I kidnap a woman and rape her, but when I'm done I leave her a million dollars. It's still rape, not solicitation of a prostitute or a simple extramarital affair. Payment does not negate a criminal agression against another person.Read what I said about the difference between day to day reality and legal reality. Legally, the draft is not involuntary servitude as covered by the constitution.

Where does the government, which allegedly derives its power from the people, gain the authority to claim ownership of the people to the extent of forcing them to risk death in armed conflict? Particularly when the alternative is to do that or be jailed and assessed with massive fines.
Because we allowed it to do so. Because we elected the presidents that appointed the judges that made the decision. Because we elected the congressmen that confirmed them. Because we have yet to present a case to the SCOTUS that was convincing enough to result in a reversal of decision, and a modification of constitutional law.

Don't like it? Go to jail. Don't like that? Fight the system. Contest the law. Don't want to? Then you consent to the current system.
That is where they gain the authority.

so as long as the blacks were fed and sheltered, they weren't slaves? I call BS on this.



no. the constitution = constitutional law. The SCOTUS has no authority to override the constitution. If I do not volunteer for a form of servitude, and am pressed into service anyway against my will, it is involuntary servitude. How hard is that to understand? Suppose I kidnap a woman and rape her, but when I'm done I leave her a million dollars. It's still rape, not solicitation of a prostitute or a simple extramarital affair. Payment does not negate a criminal agression against another person.

Where does the government, which allegedly derives its power from the people, gain the authority to claim ownership of the people to the extent of forcing them to risk death in armed conflict? Particularly when the alternative is to do that or be jailed and assessed with massive fines.

Article I, Section 8:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


... Congress authorizes force, they have the right to draft anyone.

Article III, Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

...The Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional.

Amendment XIII, Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

...They have the back door.

"The state" is a legal fiction. It is not a self-aware entity capable of acting on its own. The state only acts in the best interests of whoever controls the state. The US is not under the control of the people. At the national level, government is under the de facto control of the major party leaders, special interest lobbyists, and the military-industrial complex.

Nowhere does the constitution authorize compulsory service. The draft is nothing more than government-sanctioned involuntary servitude, aka slavery. Also, be careful about relying on the Supreme Court. 5 out of 9 deciding something is no guarantee that the decision is correct.

no. the constitution = constitutional law. The SCOTUS has no authority to override the constitution. If I do not volunteer for a form of servitude, and am pressed into service anyway against my will, it is involuntary servitude. How hard is that to understand? Suppose I kidnap a woman and rape her, but when I'm done I leave her a million dollars. It's still rape, not solicitation of a prostitute or a simple extramarital affair. Payment does not negate a criminal agression against another person.

Where does the government, which allegedly derives its power from the people, gain the authority to claim ownership of the people to the extent of forcing them to risk death in armed conflict? Particularly when the alternative is to do that or be jailed and assessed with massive fines.

Is it voluntary?

Edit: Because I don't see anywhere the 13th amendment mentions compensation being a deciding factor in whether or not one can be pressed into involuntary servitude.

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of 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 the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

*sigh*

So the Supreme Court (1) isn't the interpreter of the Constitution and (2) has been consistently wrong in case after case concerning the draft and involuntary servitude? And why?

I'm not going to repeat my "treatise" on judicial review (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14124098&postcount=19) and the powers of the Supreme Court.

As for the draft and involuntary servitude, Sarkhaan has already outlined some of the most significant cases. We aren't talking about a single 5-4 decision here, but rather multiple decisions (many of them unanimous). See, e.g., Robertson v. Baldwin (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=165&invol=275), 165 U.S. 275 (1897) (holding that laws against desertion not involuntary servitude); Butler v. Perry (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=240&invol=328), 240 U.S. 328 (1916) (holding that enforcement of those duties which individuals owe the government, such as service in the military and on juries, is not involuntary servitude); Selective Draft Law Cases (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=245&invol=366), 245 U.S. 366 (1918) (holding that the grant to Congress of power to raise and support armies, considered in conjunction with the grants of the powers to declare war, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and to make laws necessary and proper for executing granted powers (Constitution, Art. I, § 8), includes the power to compel military service AND holding that such compulsory military service does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment); Lichter v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/334/742.html), 334 U.S. 742 (1948) ("The constitutionality of the conscription of manpower for military service is beyond question."); United States v. O'Brien (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/391/367.html), 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (in upholding the conviction of the defendant for burning a draft card, declaring the power to classify and conscript manpower for military service was '''beyond question.''' (quoting Lichter)). See also United States v. Holmes, 387 F.2d 781, 784 (7th Cir. 1968) (''the power of Congress to raise armies and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiency, is not limited by either the Thirteenth Amendment or the absence of a military emergency''), cert. denied 391 U.S. 956 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=391&invol=956).

So unless you have a particularly compelling argument against the draft or that compulsory service violates the Thirteenth Amendment, let's go with the well established precedent.

cat tribe: Does precedent override the explicit statement that involuntary servitude is forbidden? The SCOTUS is clearly in the wrong and I don't give a damn what a bunch of black-robed officials say. The constitution doesn't need "interpretation" - it's written in plain english! Section 2 of Article 3 gives no powers of "interpretation" and where there is a clear statement that 'x' is prohibited, the SCOTUS canot declare that 'x' is OK.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The draft is a seizure of a person.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: 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.

all powers not specifically granted to the government are forbidden to it, and the listing of certain rights does not allow the government to infringe on those not listed.

Amendment XII: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.

That is rather simple wording, isn't it? You can't dance around it unless you use the worst of weasel words.

Back to the OP:

The Congress is granted the following specific powers in Article 1, Section 8:

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


The federal government is not even authorized to maintain a standing army - the army is composed of the various official militias of the states, and these only come under the authority of the POTUS after a declaration of war. In other words, every battle casualty during the past 7+ years is a crime committed by the President because he unlawfully sent that soldier into an undeclared war.

So the Supreme Court (1) isn't the interpreter of the Constitution and (2) has been consistently wrong in case after case concerning the draft and involuntary servitude? And why?

Considering the fact that their decision consistently violates the 13th amendment, yes it has been consistently wrong. Just as they would be wrong if they were to reverse their decisions on Brown V. the Board of Education or Roe V. Wade.

As for the draft and involuntary servitude, Sarkhaan has already outlined some of the most significant cases. We aren't talking about a single 5-4 decision here, but rather multiple decisions (many of them unanimous).

Repeatedly or unanimously being wrong doesn't make you right, it just makes you repeatedly and/or unanimously wrong.

So unless you have a particularly compelling argument against the draft or that compulsory service violates the Thirteenth Amendment, let's go with the well established precedent.

That's rather like asking for compelling evidence that a hypothetical law banning the practice of Islam violates the First Amendment. There used to be standing precedent that a husband could not rape his wife and that a black man was inferior to a white one. PRECEDENT does not make a decision the correct one, only BEING a correct decision does.

cat tribe: Does precedent override the explicit statement that involuntary servitude is forbidden? The SCOTUS is clearly in the wrong and I don't give a damn what a bunch of black-robed officials say. The constitution doesn't need "interpretation" - it's written in plain english! Section 2 of Article 3 gives no powers of "interpretation" and where there is a clear statement that 'x' is prohibited, the SCOTUS canot declare that 'x' is OK.

The draft is a seizure of a person.

all powers not specifically granted to the government are forbidden to it, and the listing of certain rights does not allow the government to infringe on those not listed.

That is rather simple wording, isn't it? You can't dance around it unless you use the worst of weasel words.

Back to the OP:

The Congress is granted the following specific powers in Article 1, Section 8:

The federal government is not even authorized to maintain a standing army - the army is composed of the various official militias of the states, and these only come under the authority of the POTUS after a declaration of war. In other words, every battle casualty during the past 7+ years is a crime committed by the President because he unlawfully sent that soldier into an undeclared war.

*sigh*

1. Read the fucking cases and get back to me on how they are wrong.

2. What in "plain english" is "involuntary servitude"? What does it include/exclude?

3. The 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." So even if the draft is a "seizure," it may be reasonable.

4. You quote the relevant powers of Congress yourself. Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

*snip*

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

*snip*

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

(emphasis added)

5. As for a general overview of the federal government's Military and War Powers, I suggest you read the entries here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/41.html#1) and here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/07.html#2).

6. If you want to argue about the power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, I guess I'll repeat some of what I've already said and you can try to point out where I am wrong:

1. Judicial review is the very essence of the existence of the Supreme Court and is clearly provided for in our Constitution. See generally Article III (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/) and Article VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the U.S. Constitution. This is spelled out at length in Marbury v. Madison (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=5&invol=137), 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) and, perhaps more importantly, in The Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm).

2. Where exactly in the Constitution is judicial review found?

Well, let's quickly note that Artice VI (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) tells us that: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Let us also note that Article I (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/) and Article II (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/) fail to give final power to interpret the Constitution to either the executive or legislative branch.

So, let's now turn to Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ..."

I think it inherent in the idea of judicial power that the Court has the power to interpret law. As Justice Marshall declared in Marbury (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137), "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That this was intended by the Founders to be so read is confirmed by Federalist #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm): "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

One also can look to the overall scheme of the Constitution, particularly the setting up of checks and balances. The judicial power to interpret law is the judiciary's primary check on the other branches. Without it, the system of checks and balances fails.

Regardless, in Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 2, we are informed: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ..."

Thus, any doubt that the Court has the power in both Law and Equity to rule on cases involving the meaning of the Constitution is removed. Such cases are emphatically within the judicial Power.

Finally, in Article III (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/), Section 2, we learn: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "

Thus, the judicial power includes the jurisdiction over both fact and law questions in cases arising under the Constitution. Again, the Court has the power to interpret law, including the Supreme Law of the Land.

3. Where did the concept of judicial review come from? Judicial review did not spring full-blown from the brain of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury. The concept had been long known. The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. Judicial review in the English common law originated at least as early as Dr. Bonham's Case (http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Dr%20Bonham's%20Case.htm) in 1610. Judicial review was utilized in a much more limited form by Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters. In 1761 James Otis, in the Writs of Assistance Case (http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/writs.htm) in Boston, argued that British officers had no power under the law to use search warrants that did not stipulate the object of the search. Otis based his challenge to the underlying act of Parliament on Bonham's Case, the English Constitution, and the principle of “natural equity.” John Adams subsequently adopted this reasoning to defend the rights of Americans by appeal to a law superior to parliamentary enactment. And there were several instances known to the Founders of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions.

Practically all of the Founders who expressed an opinion on the issue in the Constitutional Convention appear to have assumed and welcomed the existence of court review of the constitutionality of legislation, and I have already noted the power of judicial review was explicity set forth in The Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html). Similar statements affirming the power of judicial review were made by Founders duing the state ratifying conventions. In enacting the Judiciary Act of 1789 (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm), Congress explicitly made provision for the exercise of the power, and in other debates questions of constitutionality and of judicial review were prominent.

And, as I have also noted, in the 200 years since Marbury the power of judicial review has been accepted and further expounded. If it were truly a mere power-grab, it could have long ago been nullified. Objections to judicial review motivated by a dislike for a specific line of caselaw are both historically inaccurate and rather tedious. (In writing this brief overview of some of the history of judicial review, I've relied on numerous sources beyond the original sources linked above. I wouldn't claim to have known all of the above off the top of my head. :))

Considering the fact that their decision consistently violates the 13th amendment, yes it has been consistently wrong. Just as they would be wrong if they were to reverse their decisions on Brown V. the Board of Education or Roe V. Wade.

Repeatedly or unanimously being wrong doesn't make you right, it just makes you repeatedly and/or unanimously wrong.

That's rather like asking for compelling evidence that a hypothetical law banning the practice of Islam violates the First Amendment. There used to be standing precedent that a husband could not rape his wife and that a black man was inferior to a white one. PRECEDENT does not make a decision the correct one, only BEING a correct decision does.

OK, fine. You are correct that precedent is not necessarily correct. Nonetheless, multiple cases decided over 100 years consistently interpreting the Constitution the same way should put at least some burden on you to explain WHY THEY ARE WRONG.

Just stamping your foot and saying "I don't care what SCOTUS says" isn't an argument.

EDIT: BTW, have you any evidence whatsoever that (or logical argument why) the 13th Amendment was meant to ban the practice of conscription, which existed prior to its enactment?

EDIT2: Your argument that you need not make an argument is rather silly. Among other things, I would think it rather easy to make a compelling argument that a law banning the practice of Islam violates the First Amendment. Similarly, I can easily explain why a husband can rape his wife and a black man is not inferior to a white one.

Considering the fact that their decision consistently violates the 13th amendment, yes it has been consistently wrong.

Considering that the amendment was passed immediately after a war with conscription, don't you think they would have addressed the issue more explicitly if that had been part of the intent?

Of course, you might argue that if the principle is in the Constitution, we should abide by it even if those who put it there only held by it inconsistently, but then you'd have to establish that the principle behind prohibiting slavery actually applies to the draft. I'm not at all sure it does. For one, while slavery reduces particular individuals or a particular class of people to servitude to private individuals for profit, conscription applies on a random selection from all men of military age, and calls upon them to defend the nation as a whole.

Edit: Getting at a similar point from a different angle, prohibiting slavery is about relations between individuals, while prohibiting conscription is about relations between the government and individuals. Why should the same standards apply?

OK, fine. You are correct that precedent is not necessarily correct. Nonetheless, multiple cases decided over 100 years consistently interpreting the Constitution the same way should put at least some burden on you to explain WHY THEY ARE WRONG.

Just stamping your foot and saying "I don't care what SCOTUS says" isn't an argument.

EDIT: BTW, have you any evidence whatsoever that (or logical argument why) the 13th Amendment was meant to ban the practice of conscription, which existed prior to its enactment?

EDIT2: Your argument that you need not make an argument is rather silly. Among other things, I would think it rather easy to make a compelling argument that a law banning the practice of Islam violates the First Amendment. Similarly, I can easily explain why a husband can rape his wife and a black man is not inferior to a white one.

I fail to see how it is not equally easy to prove that a law banning involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime bans ALL forms of involuntary servitude - including the particular form of conscription.

The only exception listed in the amendment itself is that convicted criminals can be forced into involuntary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/involuntary) servitude (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Servitude). There was no exception listed for conscription (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscription) (also linking to the definition of the relevant word compulsory (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsory)).

Unless the three words (involuntary, servitude, and conscription) have changed in definition since the amendment was written I fail to see how a case can be made that conscription is anything but banned (unless we were to conscript criminals).

As demonstrated I can easily explain how conscription is a form of involuntary servitude, and thus banned by the 13th amendment.

As far as I can tell the USSC is forced to argue the equivalent of "Yes it's illegal to wear blue, even for us, but that doesn't mean I can't wear Azure".

Considering that the amendment was passed immediately after a war with conscription, don't you think they would have addressed the issue more explicitly if that had been part of the intent?

If they intended to keep conscription then why not add it as an exception? They added that you can force a convicted criminal into involuntary servitude but specifically neglected to mention conscription.

Isn't SCOTUS the final word on, well, anything to do with the Constitution?

Isn't SCOTUS the final word on, well, anything to do with the Constitution?

No, the jury trial is. 12 men in a jury can ignore whatever may be declared by anyone else in government and effectively nullify any bad law or court precedent. Of course, that doesn't work if you can't have a jury trial.

1 person with an objection to prosecution of a non-crime can hang a jury and the government can do nothing about it except try to appeal. This is our last recourse to prevent tyranny and prevent the prosecution of those who have not harmed the person or property of another person. The Grand Jury and the petit jury are the last bastions against government usurpation. This is why the trial by jury was so important to the framers of the Constitution.

I was having a discussion about Homeland Security with my Civil and Criminal Law teacher when we got to the USA PATRIOT Act. He said that "History has shown that during wartime, civil rights can be limited, revoked, and/or denied."
I then stated that since the Iraq War is over, and the U.S. is currently occupying Iraq, then the government shouldn't have the power to suspend these civil rights. He then stated that the Iraq War is not over, and (to make a long story short) I discovered that there really was no formal declaration of surrender from Iraq to the U.S., nor any peace treaty/ armistice/ ceasefire (anything like that), just George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, and that a month before "the war is effectively over [emphasis added]."
So is then is the Iraq War still going on? Because I honestly thought that the U.S. was just occupying Iraq.

So there was no formal declaration of the end of the war...

Wait, was there are a formal declaration of war in the first place? Ask him that.

I fail to see how it is not equally easy to prove that a law banning involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime bans ALL forms of involuntary servitude - including the particular form of conscription.

The only exception listed in the amendment itself is that convicted criminals can be forced into involuntary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/involuntary) servitude (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Servitude). There was no exception listed for conscription (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscription) (also linking to the definition of the relevant word compulsory (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsory)).

Unless the three words (involuntary, servitude, and conscription) have changed in definition since the amendment was written I fail to see how a case can be made that conscription is anything but banned (unless we were to conscript criminals).

As demonstrated I can easily explain how conscription is a form of involuntary servitude, and thus banned by the 13th amendment.

As far as I can tell the USSC is forced to argue the equivalent of "Yes it's illegal to wear blue, even for us, but that doesn't mean I can't wear Azure".

First, let's separate your argument from that of Lord Tothe. The Constitution prior to the 13th Amendment clearly gave Congress the power of conscription, right? It existed in the states prior to the Constitution and it was used in the Civil War.

So, the question becomes, did the 13th Amendment ban the practice of conscription?

Now we can play the dictionary game as to what is "servitude." The Oxford English Dictionary says:

The condition of being a slave or a serf, or of being the property of another person; absence of personal freedom. Often, and now usually, with additional notion of subjection to the necessity of excessive labour. Also, a (more or less rigorous) state of slavery or serfdom.

Other definitions I've found online similarly equate involuntary servitude with being a slave and specifically being the property of another person.* Even your definition says the etymology of the term "servitude" comes from the Latin for slave.

*In fact, the argument can and has been made that a status of being owned (or even controlled completely) by another person is involuntary servitude, but being so compelled by the government is not.

But the point is rather clear that banning conscription was NOT within the intentions behind the 13th Amendment. It was to ban slavery and similar conditions and was expressly based on the words of the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest Territory:

As the Court explained in Butler v. Perry:
The ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest Territory declares: 'There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.' [1 Stat. at L. 53, note.] In 1792 the territorial legislative body passed an act providing: 'That every male inhabitant of sixteen years of age and upwards on being duly warned to work on the highways by the supervisor in the township to which such inhabitant may belong shall repair to the place and at the time by the said supervisor appointed with such utensils and tools as may be ordered him wherewith he is to labour and there abide and obey the direction of such supervisor during the day in opening and repairing the highway.' (Sec. 5, chapter IV., Laws passed from July to December, 1792, Laws of the Territory Northwest of the Ohio, 1788-1798.) An act of the general assembly of the territory passed in 1799, declared: 'That all male persons of the age of twenty-one years, and not exceeding fifty, who have resided thirty days in any township of any county within this territory, who are not a township charge, shall over and above the rate of assessment hereinafter mentioned, be liable, yearly and every year, to do and perform two days' work on the public roads, under the direction of the supervisor within whose limits they shall be respectively residents.' (Sec. 10, chapter 28 of Northwest Territory Acts 1799.)

By their several Constitutions the states within the limits of the Northwest Territory prohibited involuntary servitude substantially in the language of the 1787 ordinance, and with the possible exception of Wisconsin, all of them early enacted and long enforced laws requiring labor upon public roads.

Utilizing the language of the ordinance of 1787, the 13th Amendment declares that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist. This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 69, 71, 72, 21 L. ed. 394, 406, 407; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 542 , 41 S. L. ed. 256, 257, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1138; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 282 , 41 S. L. ed. 715, 717, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326; Clyatt v. United States, 197 U.S. 207 , 49 L. ed. 726, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 429; Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 , 55 L. ed. 191, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 145.

During the debate in passage of the 13th Amendment, Senator Howard noted that the language was "the good old Anlgo-Saxon language employed by our fathers in the ordinance of 1787, an expression which has been adjudicated upon repeatedly, which is perfectly well understood by both the public and by judicial tribunals ...." Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess, 1489 (1864).

Just as the ordinance of 1787 didn't ban conscription, neither does the 13th Amendment. The obvious purpose of the 13th Amendment was to forbid all shades and conditions of slavery, NOT to overturn the time-honored concept of military conscription. Not ONE SHRED of evidence, not ONE COMMENT by any legislator of the 13th Amendment, supports the idea that the 13th Amendment was intended to end the practice of military conscription.

You don't want to accept what SCOTUS has said on this subject repeatedly and consistently because it doesn't conform to your world view, not because it is commanded by the language of the 13th Amendment.

I am no fan of the draft. I don't like it one bit. But I won't pretend it was abolished by the 13th Amendment.

If they intended to keep conscription then why not add it as an exception? They added that you can force a convicted criminal into involuntary servitude but specifically neglected to mention conscription.

Undoubtedly because they didn't believe conscription constituted "involuntary servitude."

The people who wrote and enacted the Thirteenth Amendment were those on the winning side of a war that had been fought with conscription, and they were the ones who politically had been on the side of continuing the war and keeping the draft. Why would they suddenly change their minds and abolish it? And if they had, if this had been an intentional part of their point, why not clarify it in the text? After all, the Thirteenth Amendment was conceived as the abolition of black slavery; if they had meant a broader interpretation to abolish what had been another significant national institution, they would have every reason to include it in the text.

Not to mention the fact that if that had been their intent, there would certainly be documentary evidence of debates and discussion to that effect. Do you have any to present?

No, the jury trial is. 12 men in a jury can ignore whatever may be declared by anyone else in government and effectively nullify any bad law or court precedent. Of course, that doesn't work if you can't have a jury trial.

1 person with an objection to prosecution of a non-crime can hang a jury and the government can do nothing about it except try to appeal. This is our last recourse to prevent tyranny and prevent the prosecution of those who have not harmed the person or property of another person. The Grand Jury and the petit jury are the last bastions against government usurpation. This is why the trial by jury was so important to the framers of the Constitution.

Criminal law is not Constitutional law. Jury is involved in criminal proceedings, not constitutional cases.

Undoubtedly because they didn't believe conscription constituted "involuntary servitude."

The people who wrote and enacted the Thirteenth Amendment were those on the winning side of a war that had been fought with conscription, and they were the ones who politically had been on the side of continuing the war and keeping the draft. Why would they suddenly change their minds and abolish it? And if they had, if this had been an intentional part of their point, why not clarify it in the text? After all, the Thirteenth Amendment was conceived as the abolition of black slavery; if they had meant a broader interpretation to abolish what had been another significant national institution, they would have every reason to include it in the text.

Not to mention the fact that if that had been their intent, there would certainly be documentary evidence of debates and discussion to that effect. Do you have any to present?

Additionally, you can opt out of conscription! Just go to jail... or Canada. ;)