The U.S. Draft is Unconstitutional
February 25, 2019 11:35 AM Subscribe
Drafting Only Men for the Military Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
The Telegraph reports women should be included in draft
The History of Conscription in the United States
Judge's Order (PDF)
The Telegraph reports women should be included in draft
The History of Conscription in the United States
Judge's Order (PDF)
So all of the lessons from my Quaker school about conscientous objection will apply to me at last? I'm overjoyed.
/s
posted by wellifyouinsist at 11:57 AM on February 25, 2019 [21 favorites]
/s
posted by wellifyouinsist at 11:57 AM on February 25, 2019 [21 favorites]
Hopefully soon security clearance and student loan applicants will go from having to prove they were never legally male between 18 and 26 OR providing evidence they registered for selective service to everyone doing the second, regardless of legal gender. Having to prove the timing of one's transition and registration is a hassle.
posted by bagel at 11:59 AM on February 25, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by bagel at 11:59 AM on February 25, 2019 [15 favorites]
I wonder how this might apply to the Trump administration's transgender ban, too.
EDIT: What bagel said.
posted by Strange Interlude at 12:00 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
EDIT: What bagel said.
posted by Strange Interlude at 12:00 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
I assumed the justification for current law is that the share of women who physically qualify for combat would be relatively small, making it inefficient to include women in the draft. That in fact was one of the arguments by the government, and the court did not reject it factually (nor did it accept it). Rather, it found that it was not a legally relevant argument because Congress did not base the law on it. However, "Had Congress compared male and female rates of physical eligibility, for example, and concluded that it was not administratively wise to draft women, the court may have been bound to defer to Congress’s judgment." (IANAL; corrections or clarifications from real lawyers welcome.)
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:00 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:00 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
Drafting only non-rich men ought to be unconstitutional, too.
Actually, my opinion is that the entire thing should be illegal. If you can't convince enough people that your war is worth their fighting it, then it isn't.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:06 PM on February 25, 2019 [51 favorites]
Actually, my opinion is that the entire thing should be illegal. If you can't convince enough people that your war is worth their fighting it, then it isn't.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:06 PM on February 25, 2019 [51 favorites]
I wonder how this might apply to the Trump administration's transgender ban, too.
As the father of a trans-gender child, I wonder too. The current policy specifically excludes F->M trans but includes M->F trans ("Individuals who are born female and changed their gender to male are not required to register. U.S. citizens or immigrants who are born male and changed their gender to female are still required to register"). I find this odd, because it means that, currently, the only females who are obligated to register are trans females, with whom we know that at least some of the Army already has a problem. Will the new policy simply remove that rule altogether, or go the other way and rule that trans people need not register (and will be disappointed if they do)?
posted by ubiquity at 12:11 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
As the father of a trans-gender child, I wonder too. The current policy specifically excludes F->M trans but includes M->F trans ("Individuals who are born female and changed their gender to male are not required to register. U.S. citizens or immigrants who are born male and changed their gender to female are still required to register"). I find this odd, because it means that, currently, the only females who are obligated to register are trans females, with whom we know that at least some of the Army already has a problem. Will the new policy simply remove that rule altogether, or go the other way and rule that trans people need not register (and will be disappointed if they do)?
posted by ubiquity at 12:11 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
I assumed the justification for current law is that the share of women who physically qualify for combat would be relatively small, making it inefficient to include women in the draft. That in fact was one of the arguments by the government, and the court did not reject it factually (nor did it accept it). Rather, it found that it was not a legally relevant argument because Congress did not base the law on it. However, "Had Congress compared male and female rates of physical eligibility, for example, and concluded that it was not administratively wise to draft women, the court may have been bound to defer to Congress’s judgment." (IANAL; corrections or clarifications from real lawyers welcome.)
I'm not a lawyer, but in non-military employment, this is called "statistical discrmination." We need someone who can lift 50 lbs. Men are more likely than women to be able to lift 50 lbs. Therefore, we're allowed to say we only want to hire men. Wrong. In the U.S. statistical discrimination in employment is illegal. If you need someone who can lift 50 lbs, you need to just say "I need someone who can lift 50 lbs.," you can't specify that you want men.
Still, I'm surprised by the ruling. I thought the U.S. Constitution didn't have any clause that bans discrimination on the basis of sex.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:27 PM on February 25, 2019 [19 favorites]
I'm not a lawyer, but in non-military employment, this is called "statistical discrmination." We need someone who can lift 50 lbs. Men are more likely than women to be able to lift 50 lbs. Therefore, we're allowed to say we only want to hire men. Wrong. In the U.S. statistical discrimination in employment is illegal. If you need someone who can lift 50 lbs, you need to just say "I need someone who can lift 50 lbs.," you can't specify that you want men.
Still, I'm surprised by the ruling. I thought the U.S. Constitution didn't have any clause that bans discrimination on the basis of sex.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:27 PM on February 25, 2019 [19 favorites]
As an ex-military women, I've always thought the male only draft didn't really make sense, and didn't necessarily need to be related to whether or not you could have women in combat. In a situation where we need to start drafting people there will also be a bunch of far rear and state side positions that needed filling; either new support jobs or just replacing soldiers going overseas. It might be only a small percentage of the total manpower needed, but there's no reason that we shouldn't have been considering women draftable for clearly non-combat positions all along, well before anyone even started debating whether they should in combat.
posted by Dorothea Ladislaw at 12:27 PM on February 25, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by Dorothea Ladislaw at 12:27 PM on February 25, 2019 [13 favorites]
setting aside the legal issues, what kind of war would realistically require reinstitution of the draft these days? the sort of high tech combat the US engages in abroad does not rely on millions of soldiers anymore, and in fact the military actively distrusts conscription and conscripts. as for defending the homeland, the current conventional forces plus the nuclear deterrent seem vastly more than enough to deter any far-fetched scenario of invasion, which not even all the other combined militaries of the entire planet could plausibly plan, let alone pull off.
so it does seem like a purely symbolic good thing for equality.
posted by wibari at 12:32 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
so it does seem like a purely symbolic good thing for equality.
posted by wibari at 12:32 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't call this purely symbolic; it means people who are not AMAB also bear the burden of making sure their registration is done or face penalties. It would be better to abolish the draft, which has not been used in nearly half a century and I have a hard time imagining being useful in this day and age, but it's certainly not fair to only require AMAB people to register, so this is the right decision under the constraints of the framework it was made under.
posted by foxfirefey at 12:42 PM on February 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by foxfirefey at 12:42 PM on February 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
I’ve always been confused by the selective service registration. Surely the government already knows I exist, and what my date of birth and social security number are, right? I mean, where do they think I got a social security number? So why did I have to fill out a little form? Plus, I moved a bunch of times between when I registered and when I was 25, so it’s not like it made it easier for them to contact me In Case Of Draft. Is there something I’m missing?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 12:55 PM on February 25, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 12:55 PM on February 25, 2019 [13 favorites]
I assumed the justification for current law is that the share of women who physically qualify for combat would be relatively small, making it inefficient to include women in the draft.
The original justification for the current law was the 1981 SCOTUS decision in Rostker v. Goldberg, which found the male-only draft constitutional specifically because women were considered wholly ineligible for combat jobs. That idiotic ban fell in 2015, in large part by the modern nature of war making clear that any job can turn into a combat job in a heartbeat, and the evidence demonstrating that women can do the job fine. It's only in light of that ban now being gone that the government tried to use the percentage of eligible women as an argument for not changing things.
posted by mystyk at 12:57 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
The original justification for the current law was the 1981 SCOTUS decision in Rostker v. Goldberg, which found the male-only draft constitutional specifically because women were considered wholly ineligible for combat jobs. That idiotic ban fell in 2015, in large part by the modern nature of war making clear that any job can turn into a combat job in a heartbeat, and the evidence demonstrating that women can do the job fine. It's only in light of that ban now being gone that the government tried to use the percentage of eligible women as an argument for not changing things.
posted by mystyk at 12:57 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
Dorothea Ladislaw: " It might be only a small percentage of the total manpower needed, but there's no reason that we shouldn't have been considering women draftable for clearly non-combat positions all along, well before anyone even started debating whether they should in combat."
Yes, it's pretty obvious that practically any woman can be a medic, transport driver, checkpoint guard, janitor, mechanic, radio operator, drone operator, many jobs manning a ship, radar operator, missile officer etc. And there is no reason athletic women could do practically any job in the armed forces. We know this because there are integrated forces now and historically even in the US.
The current implementation of Selectve Service is an obvious classist and racist opportunity to get rid of "those people".
wibari: "setting aside the legal issues, what kind of war would realistically require reinstitution of the draft these days?"
The US has at times had a really tough time filling boots in the ongoing shit show in the middle east. If the Cheeto gets the chance to fire things up with Iran and, oh, Venezuela a short fall requiring more bodies than voluntarily throw themselves into the machine isn't far fetched.
In fact an argument could be made that the US's heavy use ofmercenaries contractors is already because they can not recruit enough people for a volunteer army.
Huffy Puffy: "Plus, I moved a bunch of times between when I registered and when I was 25, so it’s not like it made it easier for them to contact me In Case Of Draft. Is there something I’m missing?"
It's an obvious hang over from the capabilities that existed when first implemented that the goverment can use to bludgeon the disadvantaged (tying student loans to registration, etc.) You were supposed to let the SS office know, within 10 days, your new address every time you moved.
posted by Mitheral at 1:04 PM on February 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
Yes, it's pretty obvious that practically any woman can be a medic, transport driver, checkpoint guard, janitor, mechanic, radio operator, drone operator, many jobs manning a ship, radar operator, missile officer etc. And there is no reason athletic women could do practically any job in the armed forces. We know this because there are integrated forces now and historically even in the US.
The current implementation of Selectve Service is an obvious classist and racist opportunity to get rid of "those people".
wibari: "setting aside the legal issues, what kind of war would realistically require reinstitution of the draft these days?"
The US has at times had a really tough time filling boots in the ongoing shit show in the middle east. If the Cheeto gets the chance to fire things up with Iran and, oh, Venezuela a short fall requiring more bodies than voluntarily throw themselves into the machine isn't far fetched.
In fact an argument could be made that the US's heavy use of
Huffy Puffy: "Plus, I moved a bunch of times between when I registered and when I was 25, so it’s not like it made it easier for them to contact me In Case Of Draft. Is there something I’m missing?"
It's an obvious hang over from the capabilities that existed when first implemented that the goverment can use to bludgeon the disadvantaged (tying student loans to registration, etc.) You were supposed to let the SS office know, within 10 days, your new address every time you moved.
posted by Mitheral at 1:04 PM on February 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
"As an antiwar feminist, I applaud this ruling. It's about time. I don't think anyone should be drafted, but if someone can, all able bodied people in the right age range should be considered equally."
I really struggle with this. Since I believe nobody should be drafted, it is better in my eyes for the least amount of people to be eligible, regardless of what exclusionary principle is at work. Whether it be "no women" or "no people with two middle names." I guess it comes down to, what is a bigger priority for me, equality, or preventing people from becoming murder-tools for governments.
posted by GoblinHoney at 1:04 PM on February 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
I really struggle with this. Since I believe nobody should be drafted, it is better in my eyes for the least amount of people to be eligible, regardless of what exclusionary principle is at work. Whether it be "no women" or "no people with two middle names." I guess it comes down to, what is a bigger priority for me, equality, or preventing people from becoming murder-tools for governments.
posted by GoblinHoney at 1:04 PM on February 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
One thing to note is that this case was brought by an MRA group. Because of that, there's been plenty of chatter from those circles that feminists are scared/angry/bothered by this judgment.
That is, of course, BS, and I think most here on the blue already suspect as much. Feminist and women's equality groups have long considered Selective Service an area of sex inequality, and while those groups have largely taken the stance that not having a draft registration at all is preferable to having one, they've been just as firm that universal registration is preferable to an unequal one.
posted by mystyk at 1:06 PM on February 25, 2019 [20 favorites]
That is, of course, BS, and I think most here on the blue already suspect as much. Feminist and women's equality groups have long considered Selective Service an area of sex inequality, and while those groups have largely taken the stance that not having a draft registration at all is preferable to having one, they've been just as firm that universal registration is preferable to an unequal one.
posted by mystyk at 1:06 PM on February 25, 2019 [20 favorites]
I’ve always been confused by the selective service registration. Surely the government already knows I exist, and what my date of birth and social security number are, right? I mean, where do they think I got a social security number? So why did I have to fill out a little form? Plus, I moved a bunch of times between when I registered and when I was 25, so it’s not like it made it easier for them to contact me In Case Of Draft. Is there something I’m missing?
Same reason they have us send in our W-2's so that there's bureaucracy for people to hide and get caught in.
posted by es_de_bah at 1:08 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
Same reason they have us send in our W-2's so that there's bureaucracy for people to hide and get caught in.
posted by es_de_bah at 1:08 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't get my hopes up here. Assuming that other courts don't reverse this decision, Congress could just rewrite the law around the particular objections raised with nearly unanimous bipartisan support. Alternately, Congress could just abolish Selective Service (a pre-digital registration relic), authorize the DoD to get that demographic information from other records, and make Selective Service opt-out. As we've seen in the last 40 years of "wartime," Congress and the PotUS can just rewrite the rules at will during a "crisis" and ask for permission after the fact. Assuming the powers that be need a draft, they will take whoever they want, pass whatever they need to authorize it, and sell it to SCotUS under emergency power discretion.
That's ducking the possibility that this might be a legal poison pill advanced by MRA groups, some of whom are interested in litigating what they see as the absurdity of equal protection on the basis of sex. I can support the logic of the decision without wanting to get in bed with these plaintiffs.
If I'm bitter, it's because a few hinges on my closet door were forged during a particularly bad blowout where my intentions to register as a conscientious objector during Desert Storm/Shield were regarded as shaming the family.
what kind of war would realistically require reinstitution of the draft these days?
I was under the impression that the extended occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan stretched what the U.S. could support in terms of active deployment, even with high-tech leverage. Picking a fight with Iran would probably demand some form of recruitment or conscription effort.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 1:12 PM on February 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
That's ducking the possibility that this might be a legal poison pill advanced by MRA groups, some of whom are interested in litigating what they see as the absurdity of equal protection on the basis of sex. I can support the logic of the decision without wanting to get in bed with these plaintiffs.
If I'm bitter, it's because a few hinges on my closet door were forged during a particularly bad blowout where my intentions to register as a conscientious objector during Desert Storm/Shield were regarded as shaming the family.
what kind of war would realistically require reinstitution of the draft these days?
I was under the impression that the extended occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan stretched what the U.S. could support in terms of active deployment, even with high-tech leverage. Picking a fight with Iran would probably demand some form of recruitment or conscription effort.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 1:12 PM on February 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
My understanding was that if the SSA thinks you're a guy before you turn 26, they send you a draft registration card, and not filling it out can hose you down the line.
This is why I, AFAB, registered for Selective Service at 25. This is also anecdotally why people who told SSA they were men after 26 sometimes have challenges getting higher ed documents filed.
It's my understanding that "who is supposed to provide proof they registered" and "who could be drafted or could choose to enlist" are basically unrelated. Restrictions on trans people in the military only have to do with the second thing.
posted by bagel at 1:14 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
This is why I, AFAB, registered for Selective Service at 25. This is also anecdotally why people who told SSA they were men after 26 sometimes have challenges getting higher ed documents filed.
It's my understanding that "who is supposed to provide proof they registered" and "who could be drafted or could choose to enlist" are basically unrelated. Restrictions on trans people in the military only have to do with the second thing.
posted by bagel at 1:14 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
Why is it that people always want to make sure that women have access to the shitty parts of equality, and not the good?
posted by corb at 1:16 PM on February 25, 2019 [43 favorites]
posted by corb at 1:16 PM on February 25, 2019 [43 favorites]
Seems like a reasonable, if not obvious, decision to me. If we're going to have a conscript pool, it should be everyone who could plausibly do the job. Concerns like physical ability are already handled (well, not that we've had a draft in a while, but were handled) by individual screenings. There's no reason to use sex as a proxy for stuff like "can lift 50 lbs" or "is more than 5ft 6in tall" or whatever.
Whether or not having the Selective Service System in 2019 makes sense anymore is a totally different question. If we have it, everyone who can do the job should be in it. If it's no longer needed, then we should get rid of it completely.
Personally I think it's a mistake to take the type of warfare du jour, and try to extrapolate forward and make assumptions about the next war, or the one after that. Lots of people have tried that historically and it's rarely gone well.
My guess is that the most likely situation where we'd reinstate the draft would be to grab people with particular skills. It wouldn't be Joe Random Highschool Graduate, it'd be Jane Diesel Engine Mechanic or Fred Trauma Surgeon. Which implies that draft registration should probably include some sort of ongoing skills inventory, not just a one-time "oh hey we heard you turned 18" thing.
There is a whole part of the Selective Service System called the Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS), which is in "standby mode", but would "Provide a fair and equitable draft of doctors, nurses, medical technicians and those with certain other health care skills if, in some future emergency, the military’s existing medical capability proved insufficient and there is a shortage of volunteers." Interestingly, the plan as it exists right now would include both men and women.
I could come up with a bunch of other scenarios where a draft might make sense; most of them involve situations where the active duty military suffered severe losses, and needed to backfill combat-support or stateside roles in order to deploy everyone currently capable of pulling a trigger. They're not pleasant, but they're not totally outside the realm of imagination either. If there's anything that we should learn from the 20th century, it's that "war is too costly to ever happen again" is always naïve.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:21 PM on February 25, 2019 [6 favorites]
Whether or not having the Selective Service System in 2019 makes sense anymore is a totally different question. If we have it, everyone who can do the job should be in it. If it's no longer needed, then we should get rid of it completely.
Personally I think it's a mistake to take the type of warfare du jour, and try to extrapolate forward and make assumptions about the next war, or the one after that. Lots of people have tried that historically and it's rarely gone well.
My guess is that the most likely situation where we'd reinstate the draft would be to grab people with particular skills. It wouldn't be Joe Random Highschool Graduate, it'd be Jane Diesel Engine Mechanic or Fred Trauma Surgeon. Which implies that draft registration should probably include some sort of ongoing skills inventory, not just a one-time "oh hey we heard you turned 18" thing.
There is a whole part of the Selective Service System called the Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS), which is in "standby mode", but would "Provide a fair and equitable draft of doctors, nurses, medical technicians and those with certain other health care skills if, in some future emergency, the military’s existing medical capability proved insufficient and there is a shortage of volunteers." Interestingly, the plan as it exists right now would include both men and women.
I could come up with a bunch of other scenarios where a draft might make sense; most of them involve situations where the active duty military suffered severe losses, and needed to backfill combat-support or stateside roles in order to deploy everyone currently capable of pulling a trigger. They're not pleasant, but they're not totally outside the realm of imagination either. If there's anything that we should learn from the 20th century, it's that "war is too costly to ever happen again" is always naïve.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:21 PM on February 25, 2019 [6 favorites]
I was curious, and so looked at the text of the relevant law, and a state of war or national emergency can both be used for the draft.
So, if we know, for example, that something big will hit the earth, and we need to mobilize to prevent that or build shelters or whatever, or if a giant volcano like the one under yellowstone erupted and covered a large portion of the US in ash and creating a little ice age, that's totally something we could have a draft for, from what I can tell.
I'm personally okay with forced military service to preserve the existence of my country/the world.
posted by gryftir at 1:22 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
So, if we know, for example, that something big will hit the earth, and we need to mobilize to prevent that or build shelters or whatever, or if a giant volcano like the one under yellowstone erupted and covered a large portion of the US in ash and creating a little ice age, that's totally something we could have a draft for, from what I can tell.
I'm personally okay with forced military service to preserve the existence of my country/the world.
posted by gryftir at 1:22 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
a state of war or national emergency can both be used for the draft.
Please no one tell Trump this.
posted by corb at 1:23 PM on February 25, 2019 [25 favorites]
Please no one tell Trump this.
posted by corb at 1:23 PM on February 25, 2019 [25 favorites]
Why is it that people always want to make sure that women have access to the shitty parts of equality, and not the good?
I refer you to Phyllis Schlafly. As I recall, she was really gung-ho for having people like me drafted and sent to war, while she enjoyed her gender deferment. She was not alone, by a long shot.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:25 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
I refer you to Phyllis Schlafly. As I recall, she was really gung-ho for having people like me drafted and sent to war, while she enjoyed her gender deferment. She was not alone, by a long shot.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:25 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
Surely the government already knows I exist, and what my date of birth and social security number are, right?
Consider it a helpful reminder that only a few generations ago, we weren't so thoroughly and consistently tracked and numbered.
posted by sfenders at 1:27 PM on February 25, 2019 [7 favorites]
Consider it a helpful reminder that only a few generations ago, we weren't so thoroughly and consistently tracked and numbered.
posted by sfenders at 1:27 PM on February 25, 2019 [7 favorites]
Still, I'm surprised by the ruling. I thought the U.S. Constitution didn't have any clause that bans discrimination on the basis of sex.
Discrimination on the basis of sex has been considered to breach the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment since the '70s. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's involvement (as a lawyer) in some of the pivotal cases establishing this is the subject of the current film "On the Basis of Sex".
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:34 PM on February 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
Discrimination on the basis of sex has been considered to breach the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment since the '70s. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's involvement (as a lawyer) in some of the pivotal cases establishing this is the subject of the current film "On the Basis of Sex".
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:34 PM on February 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
And I think this is perfectly reasonable - the immediate impact will be to get rid of one more 'evil feminists don't want REAL equality' argument from idiots, and I don't think Congress will be brave (or stupid) enough to touch the law at all.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:36 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:36 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
Thanks, Agent of Kaos...so not to start a giant derail, but if that's the case, why was there so much fight over the ERA. If it was already illegal than why need an ERA. And if it was already illegal, why oppose it? (sorry to be an ignorant foreigner looking in).
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 1:36 PM on February 25, 2019
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 1:36 PM on February 25, 2019
Discrimination on the basis of sex has been considered to breach the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment since the '70s.
It seems pretty clear from the decision that it's not clear-cut - differentiation is OK in some cases:
Typically, “[t]he defender of legislation that differentiates on the basis of gender must show ‘at least that the [challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.’” ... Further, “the classification must substantially serve an important governmental interest today”—it is insufficient that the law served an important interest in the past.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:46 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
It seems pretty clear from the decision that it's not clear-cut - differentiation is OK in some cases:
Typically, “[t]he defender of legislation that differentiates on the basis of gender must show ‘at least that the [challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.’” ... Further, “the classification must substantially serve an important governmental interest today”—it is insufficient that the law served an important interest in the past.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:46 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
Why is it that people always want to make sure that women have access to the shitty parts of equality, and not the good?
posted by corb
MRA groups pushed this. I am sure you know what their motives are, often.
posted by agregoli at 1:46 PM on February 25, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by corb
MRA groups pushed this. I am sure you know what their motives are, often.
posted by agregoli at 1:46 PM on February 25, 2019 [6 favorites]
I am wondering about the MRA aspect of this. Like, why is this a victory for men's rights activists?
posted by all about eevee at 1:48 PM on February 25, 2019
posted by all about eevee at 1:48 PM on February 25, 2019
The ERA was first introduced in 1921 and was passed by Congress in 1972. The major arguments about it were happening at the same time as the cases arguing that the 14th amendment applied. RBG herself argued for it, and it would have made those future cases unnecessary.
Wikipedia
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:49 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
Wikipedia
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:49 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
I've been homebrewing beer a long time. Last year I looked at the bottom of my plastic brewing bucket and saw the date code marking the thing as being over 18 years old. Huh, I thought, must be time to register it for the draft.
posted by exogenous at 1:52 PM on February 25, 2019 [15 favorites]
posted by exogenous at 1:52 PM on February 25, 2019 [15 favorites]
I am wondering about the MRA aspect of this. Like, why is this a victory for men's rights activists?
Because MRA types aren't actually motivated by making things better for men -- they're motivated by making things worse for women.
posted by Etrigan at 1:52 PM on February 25, 2019 [40 favorites]
Because MRA types aren't actually motivated by making things better for men -- they're motivated by making things worse for women.
posted by Etrigan at 1:52 PM on February 25, 2019 [40 favorites]
t seems pretty clear from the decision that it's not clear-cut - differentiation is OK in some cases:
It is clear cut that it breaches the Equal Protection clause, but all claims for equal protection are analysed under a varying level of scrutiny depending on how important the claimed right is. You may have heard the phrase "strict scrutiny", for instance. More about this on wikipedia.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:52 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
It is clear cut that it breaches the Equal Protection clause, but all claims for equal protection are analysed under a varying level of scrutiny depending on how important the claimed right is. You may have heard the phrase "strict scrutiny", for instance. More about this on wikipedia.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:52 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
The ERA also contained a legislative mandate.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 2:00 PM on February 25, 2019
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 2:00 PM on February 25, 2019
Because MRA types aren't actually motivated by making things better for men -- they're motivated by making things worse for women.
Yep. MRAs are a hate group.
posted by mordax at 2:07 PM on February 25, 2019 [11 favorites]
Yep. MRAs are a hate group.
posted by mordax at 2:07 PM on February 25, 2019 [11 favorites]
I've been homebrewing beer a long time. Last year I looked at the bottom of my plastic brewing bucket and saw the date code marking the thing as being over 18 years old. Huh, I thought, must be time to register it for the draft.
BOOOOOOO
yaaaay
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 2:09 PM on February 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
BOOOOOOO
yaaaay
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 2:09 PM on February 25, 2019 [9 favorites]
The US has at times had a really tough time filling boots in the ongoing shit show in the middle east. If the Cheeto gets the chance to fire things up with Iran and, oh, Venezuela a short fall requiring more bodies than voluntarily throw themselves into the machine isn't far fetched.
Neither of those sentences is true, or germane.
Overall U.S. military recruiting hasn't fallen below its own goals in more than 30 years, and for pretty much all of the current wars, those goals were based on "What if we get into another war, in addition to the ones we have now?" The Army missed annual goals a few times around the start of the Iraq War (and again last year, but that was mostly because the Army is expanding), and I think the Marine Corps missed its goals once or twice, but the Navy and Air Force have never had problems.
And the problems have never been getting "more bodies". The problem is getting the right skill sets. The modern military isn't a few educated officers who point a large number of uneducated farmboys with bayonets at the enemy until one side runs out of farmboys. Today's service members have to be highly trained in their systems and operations, on an individual and collective level, and you just can't do that with conscripts. Countries that have conscription largely adhere to the cadre model, where long-term professional service members receive most of the useful training, and "mandatory service" is largely divided into tryouts for those cadre jobs vs. people who are just hanging out for a couple of years until they go to college, and everyone hopes that latter bunch doesn't end up having to go to war.
posted by Etrigan at 2:09 PM on February 25, 2019 [10 favorites]
Neither of those sentences is true, or germane.
Overall U.S. military recruiting hasn't fallen below its own goals in more than 30 years, and for pretty much all of the current wars, those goals were based on "What if we get into another war, in addition to the ones we have now?" The Army missed annual goals a few times around the start of the Iraq War (and again last year, but that was mostly because the Army is expanding), and I think the Marine Corps missed its goals once or twice, but the Navy and Air Force have never had problems.
And the problems have never been getting "more bodies". The problem is getting the right skill sets. The modern military isn't a few educated officers who point a large number of uneducated farmboys with bayonets at the enemy until one side runs out of farmboys. Today's service members have to be highly trained in their systems and operations, on an individual and collective level, and you just can't do that with conscripts. Countries that have conscription largely adhere to the cadre model, where long-term professional service members receive most of the useful training, and "mandatory service" is largely divided into tryouts for those cadre jobs vs. people who are just hanging out for a couple of years until they go to college, and everyone hopes that latter bunch doesn't end up having to go to war.
posted by Etrigan at 2:09 PM on February 25, 2019 [10 favorites]
Surely, we haven't forgotten the Universal National Service bills of 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2013?
They proposed the requirement that "all residents" (note, they didn't say citizen) in the United States aged between 18 and 42 carry out national service, and be available for conscription during wartime. They didn't allow any deferments after age 20.
I don't think large scale warfare is out of the question. North Korea, Venezuela, the South China sea and the coming Sunni-Shia civil war (Saudi Arabia and friends vs Iran and pals) are all nasty hot spots that don't seem to be cooling off soon.
Climate change will cause more widespread "natural" disasters, which could overwhelm the first responders and National Guard.
posted by Marky at 2:11 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
They proposed the requirement that "all residents" (note, they didn't say citizen) in the United States aged between 18 and 42 carry out national service, and be available for conscription during wartime. They didn't allow any deferments after age 20.
I don't think large scale warfare is out of the question. North Korea, Venezuela, the South China sea and the coming Sunni-Shia civil war (Saudi Arabia and friends vs Iran and pals) are all nasty hot spots that don't seem to be cooling off soon.
Climate change will cause more widespread "natural" disasters, which could overwhelm the first responders and National Guard.
posted by Marky at 2:11 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
I assumed the justification for current law is that the share of women who physically qualify for combat would be relatively small
You're forgetting about tanks, aircraft and submarines, where short stature is an advantage. In some specialties, excluding women excludes more than 50% of potential recruits.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:13 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
You're forgetting about tanks, aircraft and submarines, where short stature is an advantage. In some specialties, excluding women excludes more than 50% of potential recruits.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:13 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
I still don't think women should be eligible for draft just because my understanding is the military knows what to do with you if you have a stereotypical male body. It knows how to deal with a big mass of dudes in bulk; your armor fits, your prothsetics fit, it knows how to cut your hair and what hygiene items you need, and how to keep you entertained and working etc. and yet even with women volunteering and WANTING to be a part of this machine for so many years the machine has still not figured out how to do any of that for them. I think the draft should be illegal for sure but it also should not be basically enslaving people that it can't even handle the basic bare minimum of care for.
posted by bleep at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by bleep at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
Not to mention the rampant sexual assault.
posted by bleep at 2:19 PM on February 25, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by bleep at 2:19 PM on February 25, 2019 [12 favorites]
This strikes me as largely symbolic, since I don't think a draft would be politically tenable any more.
However, the notion that women shouldn't be eligible for the draft because few of them would qualify for combat is ridiculous. Only a small percentage of the armed forces is ever deployed in combat, and there is no reason whatsoever that women couldn't serve in the huge number of incredibly important supporting roles.
posted by slkinsey at 2:20 PM on February 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
However, the notion that women shouldn't be eligible for the draft because few of them would qualify for combat is ridiculous. Only a small percentage of the armed forces is ever deployed in combat, and there is no reason whatsoever that women couldn't serve in the huge number of incredibly important supporting roles.
posted by slkinsey at 2:20 PM on February 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
Having a bigger body of people eligible for the draft actually increases the number of people who would oppose the draft and war. Vietnam is a prime example. Does anyone think that every college student who marched against the war did it on moral principles? Many did, I know. Others, wisely in my opinion, wanted to stop the draft.
posted by etaoin at 2:26 PM on February 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by etaoin at 2:26 PM on February 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
Yeah at some point somebody has got to decide that vacuuming up all the 20 year olds and dumping them in a wood chipper is something we're not going to do anymore.
posted by bleep at 2:28 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by bleep at 2:28 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
They...already decided to quit doing it 46 years ago, and it would take a literal act of Congress to bring it back.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:43 PM on February 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:43 PM on February 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
In a situation where we need to start drafting people there will also be a bunch of far rear and state side positions that needed filling; either new support jobs or just replacing soldiers going overseas. It might be only a small percentage of the total manpower needed
In WW2 it was a large percentage of the armed forces. I can't remember the ratio, but I think that support staff outnumbered frontline troops.
posted by jb at 2:43 PM on February 25, 2019
In WW2 it was a large percentage of the armed forces. I can't remember the ratio, but I think that support staff outnumbered frontline troops.
posted by jb at 2:43 PM on February 25, 2019
It's not abolished for good or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
posted by bleep at 2:47 PM on February 25, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by bleep at 2:47 PM on February 25, 2019 [6 favorites]
I'm in favor of a system that many countries have (there's probably a term for this): you must choose either the military or community service. I believe a year is the standard, though I'm sure some do more. Everyone must participate--yes, Libertarians, that means you guys too--regardless of wealth. Not sure how that interrupts university plans, but a year is not long, and if everyone is doing it, the playing field is leveled.
posted by zardoz at 2:51 PM on February 25, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by zardoz at 2:51 PM on February 25, 2019 [11 favorites]
Wouldn't the US actually need to declare war to enable the draft, a thing that we haven't done since WW2? The only situation I could see actually needing the draft is if we got into a full-scale nuclear war, in which case we'd need people to plant a flag on top of a smouldering radioactive pile of rubble.
There may have been studies that argued that countries with drafts are less likely to start wars, but that may have only been true for democratic countries.
In WW2 it was a large percentage of the armed forces. I can't remember the ratio, but I think that support staff outnumbered frontline troops.
No doubt this is even more true today, which is one of the reasons why the military has been relying so much on outside contractors to do things like cook meals and sweep the floors (maybe even load missiles into planes and paper into printers).
posted by meowzilla at 2:59 PM on February 25, 2019
There may have been studies that argued that countries with drafts are less likely to start wars, but that may have only been true for democratic countries.
In WW2 it was a large percentage of the armed forces. I can't remember the ratio, but I think that support staff outnumbered frontline troops.
No doubt this is even more true today, which is one of the reasons why the military has been relying so much on outside contractors to do things like cook meals and sweep the floors (maybe even load missiles into planes and paper into printers).
posted by meowzilla at 2:59 PM on February 25, 2019
In WW2 it was a large percentage of the armed forces. I can't remember the ratio, but I think that support staff outnumbered frontline troops.
Tooth-toTail Ratio.
I think it's usually somewhere in the 60/40 to 70/30 range. Depending on the war and if you need to start grabbing cooks and supply clerks in a Battle of the Bugle kind of situation.
posted by Cyrano at 3:04 PM on February 25, 2019
Tooth-toTail Ratio.
I think it's usually somewhere in the 60/40 to 70/30 range. Depending on the war and if you need to start grabbing cooks and supply clerks in a Battle of the Bugle kind of situation.
posted by Cyrano at 3:04 PM on February 25, 2019
Etrigan: "And the problems have never been getting "more bodies". The problem is getting the right skill sets. The modern military isn't a few educated officers who point a large number of uneducated farmboys with bayonets at the enemy until one side runs out of farmboys. Today's service members have to be highly trained in their systems and operations, on an individual and collective level, and you just can't do that with conscripts."
I'm not sure what hair split separates "more bodies" from "more skills" as skills are generally embodied in bodies and not free floating plasmas or something. And I've having a hard time believing that the US smegging goverment could draft people with bachelor degrees and somehow, someway get them trained for many/most jobs in 6-12 months time. A draft that turns out to reject 99% of registrants would still increase the numbers of skilled members available. Heck the current adventure in the Middle East has being going on for more than 18 years; training periods for draftees could be really long and still be effective boosts to operations. Someone has already detailed the Doctor Draft.
Huffy Puffy: "They...already decided to quit doing it 46 years ago, and it would take a literal act of Congress to bring it back."
As bars go that pretty low.
posted by Mitheral at 3:05 PM on February 25, 2019
I'm not sure what hair split separates "more bodies" from "more skills" as skills are generally embodied in bodies and not free floating plasmas or something. And I've having a hard time believing that the US smegging goverment could draft people with bachelor degrees and somehow, someway get them trained for many/most jobs in 6-12 months time. A draft that turns out to reject 99% of registrants would still increase the numbers of skilled members available. Heck the current adventure in the Middle East has being going on for more than 18 years; training periods for draftees could be really long and still be effective boosts to operations. Someone has already detailed the Doctor Draft.
Huffy Puffy: "They...already decided to quit doing it 46 years ago, and it would take a literal act of Congress to bring it back."
As bars go that pretty low.
posted by Mitheral at 3:05 PM on February 25, 2019
The only reason I support a draft is that it would expose the current military fetishists to what it’s really like inside. I was a frontline grunt, and not everyone was as much of a badass as depicted in the media. So all that horeshit with dressing up like a soldier and driving a blacked out dodge would be out.
The sheer incompetence and frank stupidity of many of the lifers would be eye opening to the cult of “thank you for your service.” Plus the wars of convenience would come to a grinding halt.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 4:17 PM on February 25, 2019 [15 favorites]
The sheer incompetence and frank stupidity of many of the lifers would be eye opening to the cult of “thank you for your service.” Plus the wars of convenience would come to a grinding halt.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 4:17 PM on February 25, 2019 [15 favorites]
In my experience, MRAs love to bring up Selective Service in conversations about reproductive freedom. "The government shouldn't legislate my body." "Oh yeah, but what about the draft? The government legislates OUR bodies, too." It's the worst gotcha attempt, because 1. the majority of feminists (that I know, at least) agree that excluding women from Selective Service is wrong and 2. even so, the draft hasn't been active for some time, while the issue of reproductive freedom is an ongoing whackamole. But hey, cool, look at fast that was dealt with when the MRAs finally decided to do something. Maybe they can address reproductive freedom now. HAHAHAHAHA sigh.
posted by Ruki at 4:20 PM on February 25, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by Ruki at 4:20 PM on February 25, 2019 [12 favorites]
Wouldn't the US actually need to declare war to enable the draft, a thing that we haven't done since WW2?
Uh... you know the US had a draft for the Vietnam Conflict, right?
posted by slkinsey at 4:29 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
Uh... you know the US had a draft for the Vietnam Conflict, right?
posted by slkinsey at 4:29 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
Uh... you know the US had a draft for the Vietnam Conflict, right?
Yeah, totally blanked on Vietnam and Korea. Maybe it was wishful thinking.
posted by meowzilla at 4:39 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
Yeah, totally blanked on Vietnam and Korea. Maybe it was wishful thinking.
posted by meowzilla at 4:39 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
This strikes me as largely symbolic, since I don't think a draft would be politically tenable any more.
Opinions can change drastically and what was once politically untenable becomes mandatory. In 1916, Wilson won on a platform of He Kept Us Out of the War.
A year later, women were handing out white feathers to men not in uniform. A draft followed.
There's also the matter of how long a war goes on. Lincoln got his first bunch of volunteers from the young men who in 1861 thought the war would be an summertime fling, and/or who felt dishonored by the firing on Fort Sumter (they took honor more seriously then than we do now). When the enterprise dragged on and volunteers dried up, it became time to bring on the Conscription Act (1862) and the Draft Act (1863), which latter led directly to the NY Draft Riots. So, not universally popular, but - passed all the same. AND Lincoln got reelected. Largely by soldiers. And, some contend, by immigrants.
Things change. We are over stretched now (a little dated, but you get the idea), but if some Terribly Frightful Enemy were to arise, I can see popular opinion rising to meet it.
posted by BWA at 5:11 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
Opinions can change drastically and what was once politically untenable becomes mandatory. In 1916, Wilson won on a platform of He Kept Us Out of the War.
A year later, women were handing out white feathers to men not in uniform. A draft followed.
There's also the matter of how long a war goes on. Lincoln got his first bunch of volunteers from the young men who in 1861 thought the war would be an summertime fling, and/or who felt dishonored by the firing on Fort Sumter (they took honor more seriously then than we do now). When the enterprise dragged on and volunteers dried up, it became time to bring on the Conscription Act (1862) and the Draft Act (1863), which latter led directly to the NY Draft Riots. So, not universally popular, but - passed all the same. AND Lincoln got reelected. Largely by soldiers. And, some contend, by immigrants.
Things change. We are over stretched now (a little dated, but you get the idea), but if some Terribly Frightful Enemy were to arise, I can see popular opinion rising to meet it.
posted by BWA at 5:11 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
Tooth-to-tail ratio (T3R) isn't static over the length of an engagement, either.
A very short-duration operation—say a special forces raid on a particular objective—might be almost all "tooth", with maybe some small number of specialists along for the ride. (If you're going to determine if a facility is being used to manufacture nerve gas or pesticide, you probably have to bring someone with you who knows a lot about CW manufacturing, just f. ex.) But—as we saw in AFG—if you want to do counterinsurgency operations over the long haul, you're going to need a lot more "tail" (they probably should come up with a different term for that...), and that changes the ratio.
On the other end, responding to a really bad natural disaster where all the civil infrastructure needs to be rebuilt is going to be basically zero "tooth". A few of those at the same time could really strain organizations like FEMA and I could see that, if things really got bad, leading to a draft. Again though, I think it'd be more of a skills-based thing than mass conscription, so I question if the SSS is really aimed in the right direction at present.
But hey, cool, look at fast that was dealt with when the MRAs finally decided to do something. Maybe they can address reproductive freedom now.
They may have done the right thing for the wrong reasons, but in doing so they only undermined one of their own talking points. A win's a win.
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:11 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
A very short-duration operation—say a special forces raid on a particular objective—might be almost all "tooth", with maybe some small number of specialists along for the ride. (If you're going to determine if a facility is being used to manufacture nerve gas or pesticide, you probably have to bring someone with you who knows a lot about CW manufacturing, just f. ex.) But—as we saw in AFG—if you want to do counterinsurgency operations over the long haul, you're going to need a lot more "tail" (they probably should come up with a different term for that...), and that changes the ratio.
On the other end, responding to a really bad natural disaster where all the civil infrastructure needs to be rebuilt is going to be basically zero "tooth". A few of those at the same time could really strain organizations like FEMA and I could see that, if things really got bad, leading to a draft. Again though, I think it'd be more of a skills-based thing than mass conscription, so I question if the SSS is really aimed in the right direction at present.
But hey, cool, look at fast that was dealt with when the MRAs finally decided to do something. Maybe they can address reproductive freedom now.
They may have done the right thing for the wrong reasons, but in doing so they only undermined one of their own talking points. A win's a win.
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:11 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
The only reason I support a draft is that it would expose the current military fetishists to what it’s really like inside.
Didn't work the last time we had a draft. So long as chickenhawks like Bush, Cheney, Trump, etc. can avoid the draft, they aren't going to get that exposure. The rich are always going to be able to avoid the draft.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:40 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
Didn't work the last time we had a draft. So long as chickenhawks like Bush, Cheney, Trump, etc. can avoid the draft, they aren't going to get that exposure. The rich are always going to be able to avoid the draft.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:40 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
I don't understand why we don't just fight to end this, to me this is not that different than slavery. Forced labor that requires you to kill other humans against your will?
NEVER. No one should be forced into that shit. Fuck that. I'd be all about opening up military training for more people that would never be FORCED to fight, but which would increase the pool of people with training who could CHOOSE to do so if needed.
I can't understand why this is not considered a heinous human rights violation.
posted by xarnop at 6:53 PM on February 25, 2019 [8 favorites]
NEVER. No one should be forced into that shit. Fuck that. I'd be all about opening up military training for more people that would never be FORCED to fight, but which would increase the pool of people with training who could CHOOSE to do so if needed.
I can't understand why this is not considered a heinous human rights violation.
posted by xarnop at 6:53 PM on February 25, 2019 [8 favorites]
Because, as you see in this thread, many people consider it a theoretical thing only, and choose to spend their energy on stopping existing human rights violations rather than fighting to prevent a hypothetical one. And yes, more than one thing at a time, etc - but not everything at once.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 7:48 PM on February 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by the agents of KAOS at 7:48 PM on February 25, 2019 [3 favorites]
I am of two minds. I believe that if there is selective service, then everyone should be eligible regardless of gender. But, as I read xarnops comment, iirc they have seen actual war, in their streets, amongst their neighbors and family, I also hold the opinion that there should not be a selective service where the only option is to be trained as a soldier.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 8:36 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 8:36 PM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
"But, as I read xarnops comment, iirc they have seen actual war, in their streets, amongst their neighbors and family"
Is that right? Are you maybe thinking of Dee Xtrovert?
(I'm obviously happy to be corrected on this point, xarnop.)
posted by meaty shoe puppet at 8:52 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
Is that right? Are you maybe thinking of Dee Xtrovert?
(I'm obviously happy to be corrected on this point, xarnop.)
posted by meaty shoe puppet at 8:52 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
Although both the New York Times and The Telegraph chose to sensationalize the story by referring to "the draft" in the lede, the decision in the PDF pertains to the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) and the Selective Service System (SSS) which mandates registration regardless of whether there's any actual conscription. That registration requirement isn't a hypothetical currently, although one might argue that it's trivial.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 9:12 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 9:12 PM on February 25, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure what hair split separates "more bodies" from "more skills"
In case of a draft, they call in huge numbers of unskilled people, and then have to figure out which of them have useful skills. A draft may discourage registration by people with useful skills who are outside of the scope of the draft, and it definitely makes it harder to identify them and get them to where they're needed.
Implementing an actual draft means dealing with a whole bunch of "applicants" who don't want to be there. Food allergies, overweight people (the average person in the US weighs too much for military service), conscientious objectors, rich people with "bone spurs," tattoos outside of the acceptable zones, pregnancy (no longer an auto-discharge, but there's a swarm of medical issues that go with forcing a pregnant or recently-given-birth person into physical hardships), and the sheer cultural diversity of the modern US would make forcing people into service much harder than it was 45 years ago. Also, "dishonorable discharge" doesn't carry the same stigma it did then; it's not an automatic "you'll never get a good job again." The effort needed to deal with people who don't want to be there would mean less time and resources to find the people with essential skills who are willing to serve.
I suspect this is mostly an attempt to force women to face more government tracking, and more penalties for not complying with bureaucratic bullshit.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 9:26 PM on February 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
In case of a draft, they call in huge numbers of unskilled people, and then have to figure out which of them have useful skills. A draft may discourage registration by people with useful skills who are outside of the scope of the draft, and it definitely makes it harder to identify them and get them to where they're needed.
Implementing an actual draft means dealing with a whole bunch of "applicants" who don't want to be there. Food allergies, overweight people (the average person in the US weighs too much for military service), conscientious objectors, rich people with "bone spurs," tattoos outside of the acceptable zones, pregnancy (no longer an auto-discharge, but there's a swarm of medical issues that go with forcing a pregnant or recently-given-birth person into physical hardships), and the sheer cultural diversity of the modern US would make forcing people into service much harder than it was 45 years ago. Also, "dishonorable discharge" doesn't carry the same stigma it did then; it's not an automatic "you'll never get a good job again." The effort needed to deal with people who don't want to be there would mean less time and resources to find the people with essential skills who are willing to serve.
I suspect this is mostly an attempt to force women to face more government tracking, and more penalties for not complying with bureaucratic bullshit.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 9:26 PM on February 25, 2019 [4 favorites]
A lot of wild stuff has happened in the last few years. I don't think that we should be too comfy with being sure about what can and can't happen next especially with stuff like "Oh they won't do that because it doesn't make any sense/it's an obviously terrible idea/it's against the rules/nobody wants this". That stuff is true about a lot of stuff that's happening anyway.
posted by bleep at 10:36 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by bleep at 10:36 PM on February 25, 2019 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I'm very aware that "this is ridiculous, expensive, unwanted, inefficient, and would result in horrific deaths followed by lawsuits against prominent politicians" is not, at this point, an actual policy deterrent.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 12:30 AM on February 26, 2019
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 12:30 AM on February 26, 2019
horrific deaths followed by lawsuits against prominent politicians
I don't think that has happened in my lifetime. Politicians are a special class, and immune to most of the restraints ordinary people are subject to. We have an ex-President and Vice-President who are actual war criminals, but no lawsuit against them has got anywhere. Trump may be vulnerable to lawsuits, but they're based on property crimes, not horrific deaths. American priorities, you know.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:51 AM on February 26, 2019
I don't think that has happened in my lifetime. Politicians are a special class, and immune to most of the restraints ordinary people are subject to. We have an ex-President and Vice-President who are actual war criminals, but no lawsuit against them has got anywhere. Trump may be vulnerable to lawsuits, but they're based on property crimes, not horrific deaths. American priorities, you know.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:51 AM on February 26, 2019
(I have not been in a war zone or in the military, just to clarify! Must be someone else.)
posted by xarnop at 5:33 AM on February 26, 2019
posted by xarnop at 5:33 AM on February 26, 2019
Yeah at some point somebody has got to decide that vacuuming up all the 20 year olds and dumping them in a wood chipper is something we're not going to do anymore.
I'm currently reading an interesting book with this as a major plot point.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:32 AM on February 26, 2019
I'm currently reading an interesting book with this as a major plot point.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:32 AM on February 26, 2019
Although both the New York Times and The Telegraph chose to sensationalize the story by referring to "the draft" in the lede, the decision in the PDF pertains to the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) and the Selective Service System (SSS) which mandates registration regardless of whether there's any actual conscription. That registration requirement isn't a hypothetical currently, although one might argue that it's trivial.
The primary coercive aspect when the draft isn't actually in effect comes from the requirement to register to receive Federal student loan funds.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:42 PM on February 26, 2019
The primary coercive aspect when the draft isn't actually in effect comes from the requirement to register to receive Federal student loan funds.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:42 PM on February 26, 2019
I suspect this is mostly an attempt to force women to face more government tracking,
More bureaucracy and paperwork, perhaps. I don't think anyone is any less tracked by virtue of not filling out a card. I suspect a sizable number of you were born after the requirement kicked in for you to have a social security number before your parents could claim you as a deduction. All your calls have been tracked and the overseas ones probably recorded. And probably even they weren't international calls, but we're all still pretending right?
Selective Service registration hasn't been necessary for them to find folks to call up for a long time. It's not necessary for someone to have registered for them to actually call them up. The section after the registration requirement says
posted by phearlez at 8:07 AM on February 27, 2019
More bureaucracy and paperwork, perhaps. I don't think anyone is any less tracked by virtue of not filling out a card. I suspect a sizable number of you were born after the requirement kicked in for you to have a social security number before your parents could claim you as a deduction. All your calls have been tracked and the overseas ones probably recorded. And probably even they weren't international calls, but we're all still pretending right?
Selective Service registration hasn't been necessary for them to find folks to call up for a long time. It's not necessary for someone to have registered for them to actually call them up. The section after the registration requirement says
SEC. 4. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of nineteen and twenty-six, at the time fixed for his registration, or who attains the age of nineteen after haying been required to register pursuant to section 3 of this title, shall be liable for training and service in the armed forces of the United States.So really this is pretty pointless if it's purely about the registration aspect of things. The law also goes on to pretty much give the military the ability to draw whoever for whatever, meaning that these MRA clowns can get this registration stuff struck down but it doesn't really change anything. Sec 4 above only authorizes the conscription of men and if that means they pick them out of the IRS or Social Security office databases, well, I guess these PUA motherfuckers will just have to neg a different database table when the time comes.
posted by phearlez at 8:07 AM on February 27, 2019
I didn't get a social when I was born (in the US to US citizens)
and I'm just a bit over 30.
Out of my cohort, that's pretty strange thing, but you can't logic out my social security number so that's a bonus.
I think it's really hard to conceptualize how tracked we as a people are. I am paranoid about it and it still just a few tiny connections (email, usernames, etc) and my whole world is pretty much accessible.
I was fingerprinted for my job. My passport knows when I leave the country. My bank knows what games i play, what food I buy. My web history is a sketch of professional and entertainment. My Facebook is my relationships.
The draft is so so so tiny compared to what my ISP knows, my email accounts.... But the interconnectedness (draft to student loans for example) is a terrifying example of how easy it is to bar legal financial assistance to minor acts of disobedience.
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:54 AM on February 27, 2019 [1 favorite]
and I'm just a bit over 30.
Out of my cohort, that's pretty strange thing, but you can't logic out my social security number so that's a bonus.
I think it's really hard to conceptualize how tracked we as a people are. I am paranoid about it and it still just a few tiny connections (email, usernames, etc) and my whole world is pretty much accessible.
I was fingerprinted for my job. My passport knows when I leave the country. My bank knows what games i play, what food I buy. My web history is a sketch of professional and entertainment. My Facebook is my relationships.
The draft is so so so tiny compared to what my ISP knows, my email accounts.... But the interconnectedness (draft to student loans for example) is a terrifying example of how easy it is to bar legal financial assistance to minor acts of disobedience.
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:54 AM on February 27, 2019 [1 favorite]
« Older "Betty was the identifier, the nurturer, the... | such a shame Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by potrzebie at 11:50 AM on February 25, 2019 [66 favorites]