"Silly me."
Yes, silly you. Not only for "good purposes," but to a limited extent, with the consent of the governed, and within Constitutional constraints.
It is silly indeed to have a problem with that.
"You really seem not to get the fact that to justify a dubious principle with the proviso that it not be abused is ipso facto utilitarian."
Been a long time since philosophy 101, eh? Utilitarianism is the political philosophy that justifies measures by their utility. There is no necessary connection whatsoever with their "dubiousness" or any requirement that they not be abused.
"No."
Or rather, to any sensible and fair-minded person, "Yes."
"specifically, the notion that all power derives from the popular will -- are radically inconsistent with a Christian view."
It was specifically stated by the Founding Fathers that the popular will would necessarily be informed by Christian principles, else the system would not work.
The Declaration implicitly holds that the power that derives from the popular will has its source in God. Rights derive from God, and people can exercise power in line with those rights. It's not a license to do anything our sinful natures can conceive.
Well they goofed, because somehow that requirement didn't find its way into the Constitution. Any such "specific statement" (by whom, btw, and when?) was nothing more than a hopeful assurance, an undertaking that said founding fathers had no power to make or enforce.
Your proposal is utilitarian because it rests on nothing more than the promise that it will not be abused and its promised result is desirable. You are not looking beyond usefulness, to the fundamental question of whether the principle of compulsory service is good or evil in itself.
The Declaration implicitly holds that the power that derives from the popular will has its source in God.
Sorry; it does not. The Declaration states that:
1. Man is endowed by God with certain inalienable rights (one of them being LIBERTY, btw!)
2. Governments are founded to secure these rights.
3. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The Declaration has nothing to say about an obligation of the popular will to be godly. It does affirm a God-given right to constitute whatever form of government "on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" -- another appeal to utilitarianism. Finally, there's no suggestion that this political judgment be accountable to a higher power: the "Supreme Judge" of the world is invoked not as a source of authority, but only presumptuously, as a vidicator of the founders' decisions.