[Mark Bahner]

"I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't see anything about the militia being voluntary in the language."

How about this language?

"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."

I'm sure a good case could be made that the folks who wrote that probably weren't THINKING about conscripted military service as being "involuntary servitude." But it clearly IS.

So should we follow the letter of the Constitution, or not?

[xzins]

"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." I'm sure a good case could be made that the folks who wrote that probably weren't THINKING about conscripted military service as being "involuntary servitude." But it clearly IS. So should we follow the letter of the Constitution, or not?

I think we should follow the constitution. The language you point out, as you mention, probably will be interpreted to relate to a bygone slavery/servitude economic system.

It is POSSIBLE that it could be interpreted to cover involuntary military conscription, but it hasn't been used that way up to this point, even though it could have been.

My point is that to get the language you want, you will probably have to amend the constitution regarding the selective service draft.

There is no language currently in the Constitution that MUST MEAN that a draft is inappropriate.