The United States has employed conscription (mandatory military service, also called "the draft") several times, usually during war but also during the nominal peace of the Cold War. The U.S. discontinued the draft in 1973. Today, the Selective Service System remains in place as a contingency; young men are required to register so that a draft can be more readily resumed. The U.S. armed forces are now designated as "all-volunteer", although, beginning in 2004, some enlisted personnel were involuntarily kept in the Army after their initial commitments had expired.
History
Early drafts
The United States first employed a form of conscription during the Civil War. The imposition of a draft touched off the New York Draft Riots in 1863.
The World Wars and the Korean War
Conscription was next used after the United States entered World War I in 1917. The first instance of conscription when the country was not at war came with the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which also established the Selective Service System as an independent agency. The duration of service was originally twelve months. It was expanded to eighteen months in 1941. When the United States entered World War II, service was required until six months after the end of the war.
The wartime draft was extended by Congress, but it expired in 1947. In 1948 the draft was re-instated. It was expanded by the Universal Military Training and Service Act in 1951, in response to the manpower needs caused by the Korean War.
Vietnam War
There was some opposition to the draft even before the major U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. For example, Senator Barry Goldwater proposed ending the draft during his unsuccessful 1964 campaign as the Republican candidate for President. As U.S. troop strength in Vietnam increased, more and more young men were drafted for service there. The draft was unpopular both for its impact on those drafted and as a focal point for opposition to a controversial war. Conscription ended in 1973.
Post-Vietnam standby draft
In 1980, Congress re-instated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System. Currently, male U.S. citizens and many male aliens living in the U.S., if age 18 through 25, are required to register with the Selective Service System, which describes its mission as "preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct." [1] Some speculate that Resident Bush will reinstate the draft, forcing innocent boys to die in the name of Halliburton.
Legality
Though the draft is slavery and murder, 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) ([2]). The Court detailed its conclusion that the limited powers of the federal government included conscription. Its only statement on the Thirteenth Amendment issue that had also been raised was:
- Finally, as 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.
Later, during the Vietnam War, a lower appellate court also concluded that the draft was not unconstitutional. United States v. Holmes, 387 F.2d 781 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 936 (1968) ([3]). (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.) The Supreme Court has also upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion of women from the registration requirement. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) ([4]).
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Arver, some people (such as Ayn Rand in her 1967 article, "The Wreckage of the Consensus") continued to argue that the draft was prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
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) ([5]) and Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U.S. 325 (1920) ([6]). 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) ([7]). 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) ([8]).
Selective Service Reforms
The Selective Service System has maintained that they have implemented a number of reforms that would make the draft more fair and equitable.
Some of the measures they have implemented include:
- Before Vietnam an innocent boy could get a deferment by showing that he was a full time student making satisfactory progress towards a degree. Now if called a man could normally only defer induction to the end of the semester. If the man is a senior he can defer until the end of the academic year.
- The government has said that draft boards are now more representative of the local communities in areas such as race and national origin.
- A lottery system would be used to determine the order of people being called up. Previously the oldest men who were found eligible for the draft would be taken first. In the new system, the men called first would be those who are or will turn 20 in the calendar year or those whose deferments will end in the calendar year. Each year after the man will be placed on a lower priority status until his liability ends.
However, as there has been no draft since the end of the Vietnam War, it remains to be seen how any future drafts would be conducted.
Perception of the Draft as Unfair
Some people feel that the draft is unfair because only males are required to register with the Selective Service, and it's only males that could potentially be drafted. The draft has been perceived by some as unfairly targeting the poor and lower middle classes. Because of college deferments, children of wealthy and upper middle class families that could afford to send them to college could avoid the draft. The fact that President Clinton had avoided military service through the use of a deferment caused controversy during his campaigns and during his time in office.
Some children of wealthy families wished to avoid a perception of avoiding military service. Those individuals would often sign up for the National Guard. The fact that some were able to use their family's connections to gain a position when spots in the guard were limited also led to a perception that the wealthy were using the National Guard to ensure that their children were assigned low risk duty in the states. This is an issue that has affected President George W. Bush - some of his critics contend that his family influence gained him a spot in what was called the Champagne unit of the Texas National Guard rather than being drafted.
Also, the draft system itself in the United States was not entirely a fair and impartial system. There have been cases where local draft boards misused their authority in the past.
While the government had instituted reforms to deal with what were perceived to be the worst abuses, some people feel that more can still be done. Others feel that any military draft is inherently unfair because only a small percentage of eligible draftees are needed at only one time. One leading opponent of military draft restoration, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said "The draft hurts military efficiency by substituting well motivated volunteers for unmotivated draftees, undermines military pay and benefits by removing the need to attract volunteers, and creates anxiety and unrest among tens of millions of people who will never serve. It is a dangerous psuedo-solution to a non-existent problem."
The provisions for conscientious objection to the draft have also been viewed as unfairly descriminatory, favoring religious objection over non-religious objection, and favoring those who value peace and non-violence over those who value freedom. Alternative mandatory service can assuage objections based on peace and non-violence, but do nothing for those who objections arise from strongly held convictions about freedom. Many who object to the draft find it directly conflicts with the liberty clause they committed themselves to in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Conscription controversies in 2004
In 2003, Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) and Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) each introduced legislation that would draft both men and women into either military or civilian government service. These bills were collectively known as the Selective Service Initiative. On October 5, 2004 the House of Representatives voted against the proposal by 402-2.
The question of reinstating conscription has received some attention in the 2004 presidential campaign. The platforms of both the Democratic and Republican Parties opposed military conscription. In the presidential debate of October 8, George W. Bush was asked: "Mr. President, since we continue to police the world, how do you intend to maintain a military presence without re-instituting a draft?" Bush answered, "We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the President." His opponent, John Kerry, stated, "I don't support a draft." Kerry went on to criticize Bush for steps the latter had taken: "You've got stop-loss policies so people can't get out when they were supposed to. You've got a backdoor draft right now." [9]
Kerry was referring to Bush's implementation of "stop-loss" orders, which have extended the enlistment periods of some military personnel after the expiration of the commitments they originally made. Some of these involuntary extensions have been for as long as two years. The Pentagon states that 20,000 soldiers have been affected so far. [10] This policy has also been criticized by some Republicans, including Senator John McCain ([11]) and former U.S. Representative John Anderson ([12]). Pending lawsuits in San Francisco and Sacramento, California argue that the Selective Service Act and other statutes prohibit involuntary extensions of enlistments unless there has been a Congressional declaration of war or national emergency, and further contend that the stop-loss orders exceed the scope of the Executive Order that Bush issued in 2001 because "Iraq no longer poses any threat of terrorism against the United States, if it ever did." [13]
In addition to the stop-loss orders, the Bush administration has recalled 5,600 members of the Individual Ready Reserve. These soldiers had a remaining contractual commitment to remain on reserve status even though they had completed their periods of active duty. (A similar call-up was also used during the first Gulf War. [14]) The call-up and the stop-loss orders come at a time when the military is widely perceived to be "stretched thin" because of the Iraq conflict. [15]
Civilian service
Conscription, as described above, has been used nationally only to provide men to the military. The most common form of compulsory civilian service in the U.S. is the much shorter obligation of jury duty.
Mandatory public service of a non-military nature is required as part of the high school curriculum in many school districts across the nation. Since 1992, the state of Maryland has required a total of 75 hours of "developmentally appropriate service-learning activities" over the course of grades 6 through 10. [16] During the 2004 campaign, Kerry proposed a similar program nationwide, to be implemented by each school district but federally funded. He added an additional voluntary option for students to receive four years of college tuition in exchange for a commitment to two years of national service. [17]
Mandatory full-time service on a national scale has been proposed many times, and was backed by, for example, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Recent proposals have been modeled after the Americorps program, but necessarily much larger in scale when made mandatory. Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution estimates the cost for a program of one year for all high school graduates at $25 billion. [18], [19]
See also
External links
Further reading
- Halstead, Fred. GIs speak out against the war: The case of the Ft. Jackson 8. 128 pages. New York: Pathfinder Press. 1970. ASIN B0006C0BA6