Topic: Universal National Service
H.R.-1444 and mandatory service Mandatory service is the same thing as involuntary servitude and slaveryby David S
(libertarian)
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Mandatory service equals involuntary servitude, equals slavery.
It seems the Democrats are determined to turn the American people into slaves of the government. Bill HR-1388 would have created a commission to study mandatory service for all Americans. That language was removed from the bill before it passed, perhaps because of public anger over it. But now a new bill, H.R.-1444, has been introduced which contains essentially the same language. This bill, the Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act would create a commission to study;
"Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."
Mandatory service is a recurring theme among the Democrats. In the 110th congress Charles Rangel introduced the Universal National Service Act H.R.-393. That bill would have required 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 for a period of two years.
During the 2004 presidential campaign John Kerry said. "For America now, service is not just an option, but an obligation of citizenship." [link edited for length]
Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff has also called for mandatory national service.[link edited for length]
Mandatory service is the same thing as involuntary servitude and slavery, and is prohibited by the 13th amendment. The fact that government would be the slave master does not make it legal. One has to wonder why the Democrats seem so determined to bring this about. We also have to ask ourselves what kind of place we want America to be. Do we want America to remain the "Land of the Free", or do we want America to be a land where the people are slaves of the government?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 113 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of David S only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. David S is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Great information about the stategic plans of the government. I thought this government was for the people and by the people but it seems its a government for the government. From the "Land of the Free" to the "Land of the tyranny." We should have the right and priveledge to choose whether we want to serve our country or not period. Doesn't God give us the right to accept or not accept His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior? I see our precious 13th amendment becoming pulverized.
In addition to enslaving young people (what was section 6104 "mandatory" service), there may be also a provision for enslaving those of us over 55 (was section 1203/120). Obama is the anti-Lincoln! Lincoln freed the slaves and Obama will ENSLAVE THE FREE! How is THAT for CHANGE!!!
Mandatory Service Vs. Mandatory Taxation: Is there a difference? Only the medium in which the government is paid.
Many of us work the first third of the year for the benefit of the government. Only they take a portion of each paycheck rather than the whole sum up front.
Wendy I agree although this goes beyond military service. This would include civilian service. That's something the government hasn't done before.
EJ The comparison with the income tax is appropriate. Although I think mandatory service is far worse. In the case of income tax government says; if you earn money we're taking part of it. In the case of mandatory service government says; You will do what we tell you to do. At least in the case of income taxes you can do what you want to do. In the case of mandatory service you have to do what government tells you to do.
Here's another comparison with the income tax. Some folks will say Rahm Emanuel's plan for service isn't so bad because it only calls for 3 months of service and it only applies to young people. But remember when the income tax was created the top rate was only 7% and that only applied to the wealthiest Americans. But within 5 years the top rate had risen to 77% and in 31 years the top rate was up to 94% ! Today even the lowest bracket is greater than 7%. The point is that these people deal in incrementalism. They get their foot in the door with something that doesn't seem too bad and then they crank it up to something that no one would have agreed to in the beginning. So once they set the precedent that government can demand service of the citizens then the duration of service can be whatever they want it to be. It could be 2 years as Rangel calls for or it could be 20 years or a lifetime. That's why it's so important that we don't let them get that one foot in the door.
Mandatory voluntary service... same type of oxymoron as B.O.'s law-abiding illegal immigrants.
Everybody needs to keep watch on this one and H.R. 1388 (passed). In order to attend public school (that we pay for with taxes), there will soon be mandatory service stipulations. We are already heading in a direction where a worthwhile education can only be obtained through private school... this will seal the fate.
http://foundingfatherscry.com/forum/index.php -Government Watch Group
Is there an organization yet forming to recall our representatives for derelection of duty? These people swore to uphold and defend the constitution. They should be fighting all of these measures not authoring and cosponsoring them. We as citizens empowered them to these positions and we as citizens can remove them.
Nate, that's the $64 thousand dollar question. In the case of mandatory service, probably not because they haven't passed a bill yet. We can only look at the bills they have introduced and see where they are headed.
But in other cases such as the bailout bill it seems to me that we should be able to take some legal action against them. There is no provision in the constitution that authorizes congress to take money from the treasury and give it to the bankers or buy bank stocks or tell the treasury secretary to spend the money as he sees fit. And yet congress passed the bill anyway. As a result, the American people have been robbed of $700 billion. It seems like our congressman should be subject to either criminal or civil legal proceedings if they voted for it. But my inquiries into such possibilities have turned up nothing. One lawyer told that we would have to show that we have been uniquely harmed by the bill. The fact that the bill would cost each of us $2300 isn't enough.
A recall is unlikely because your fellow citizen is totally in the dark and would happily re-elect his congress-critters regardless of how unscrupulous they might be.
Must I add mandatory government labor is in violation of several international agreements and conventions in the the UN we are signees on. Its considered in most humanitarian rights coventions a violation of personal liberty to use government force to demand military service involuntarily. One can expand many to also include any other force of government to demand citizens untake labor for the government by use of force either legal or actual. Last time I looked these have the force of US law at the highest level. And rightly to these simple treaties simply reinforce the rights of citizens of free nations regarding their place as independent organic entities with essential rights.
This not just makes a mandatory service requirementillegal for a draft but also any other form of enforced duties to the government in the form that takes away essential freedom. The only exeptions I can find are criminals and even they have rights to retain to a lesser degree.
Posted By: dennis fleury
Date: 2010-01-13 10:17:57
This bill h.r.1444 must not be allowed to pass...this is the back door approach to establish and fund Obama's civilian army.
This is un-constitutional and scary.
Everyone should buy arms if they don't already have them as by our constitution we the people must take to the streets if we are forced to and protect the constitution.
I would also hope our military would step in and fight on the peoples side to defend this great country of America from tryants.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
