Rangel Legislation: Mandatory Military Service For ALL Americans 18-42 yrs.

[Ponce]

I told you that it was going to happen this year..........run for the hills.
================================================== ==============


Rangel Legislation: Mandatory Military Service For ALL Americans 18-42 yrs.

Rep. Charles Rangel yesterday again called for bringing back the national draft -- right at the Times Square recruiting station.

For the third time since the Iraq War began, the Harlem Democrat announced his plans to introduce a bill requiring all Americans to serve in the armed forces.

"If you love your country, be prepared to serve," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran.

Congress should stop funding the war and, instead, use tax dollars to bring troops home, he said.

Rangel, who this year was stripped of his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, said the bill calls for men and women 18-42 to sign up
for the draft during wartime. It will likely be introduced next week.

http://snardfarker.ning.com/forum/topics/rangel-legislation-mandatory?groupUrl=Global&xg_source=shorten_twitter

[undgrd]

Sure hope they don't try this for their sake. A lot of them have kids that would be tapped for duty.

OH...and I'm not serving!

[oldmansmith]

"Freedom isn't free"

Unfortunately, I can't "serve" since I'm pushing 50 and the ankle I broke in an avalanche in my 20's makes it so that I can't walk whenever the draft board comes by.

This would be the best thing ever to happen to the anti-war movement.

[Ponce]

And once again our boy will be dying for the state of Israel and not for the freedom of the US...

[Skirnir]

Remember kids: they cannot catch what they cannot extradite!

[undgrd]

You're right...Freedom isn't free. The sh*t going on today has nothing to do with freedom or liberty. I know you know this but, it just makes me feel better to say it aloud (in a manner of speaking).

;)

[Glass]

fortunately for me I'm now outside that range. Won't tell you which direction ;) but for where I live there are a few more years to go. I might still make it before before the balloons go up.

[big country]

said the bill calls for men and women 18-42 to sign up for the draft during wartime.

Don't we already have to do this? All he wants to do is extend Selective Service to women as well? Men already have to sign up when they turn 18. Guess I'm a little lost

[Skirnir]

said the bill calls for men and women 18-42 to sign up for the draft during wartime.

Don't we already have to do this? All he wants to do is extend Selective Service to women as well? Men already have to sign up when they turn 18. Guess I'm a little lost


The 80-year-old congressman said he would introduce a bill on the House floor that would require a mandatory draft, and even if it “never becomes law, it should start a debate.”
(Source: Epoch Times)

[Carbon]

Ahem...


STRONG REACTIONS, Up in arms over draft talk, Rep. Charles Rangel introduced bill in 2003 to implement it, but whether it will happen, and when, is murky
[CITY Edition]

Newsday - Long Island, N.Y.
Author: JOHN MORENO GONZALES. STAFF WRITER
Date: May 12, 2004
Start Page: A.05
Section: NEWS
Text Word Count: 1825

Abstract (Document Summary)


"If we are going to continue to have this manpower need, I'm not going to be pushing the draft, the draft will be pushing me," [Charles Rangel] said last week. "You're going to need people. Everyone in Congress knows it. It's just a wink and a nod in an election year."

Rangel's proposal helped lead Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) to a debate on the draft issue. He said he does not necessarily support a draft, or know if one will be needed, but argued that Americans should be aware of scenarios that could lead to required national service.

1) Photo by Richard Yeh - Jessica Martire, 17, and Daniel Marcus, 19, at the Millennium Billiards and Cafe in Flushing, where the possibility of a military draft is on the minds of young people. 2) Newsday Photo / Ken Sawchuk - [Edward Kent], an associate professor at Brooklyn College, says his students are opposed to the possibility of a draft. 3) Photo by Joel Cairo - [Barbara Merola]; 4) PHOTO - 'Uncle Sam' poster
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

This is seemingly just some perennial nonsense that Rangel pulls out of his ass from time to time. He actually started it in '03.

[7th trump]

It will never happen. Against the constitution for mandatory participation.
It comes way to close for the sheeple to awake to the fact that the sheeple may migrate back to being The People of the United States of America.
TPTB cannot afford an open comparison between the two types of citizenships. A haze must be kept over the truth out of the rabbit hole.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

I'll say the same thing I always say when this becomes an issue.....




JUST GIVE ME THE GUN ALREADY. No time to talk. I assure you I am sane. Just give me the freaking weapon.


The last thing they'll ever do is arm ages 18-30.

[ximmy]

What does it mean for women... Will we be trained to kill and be killed for big companies and the power elite?...

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

The verbage *does* say "ALL AMERICANS" what a brave new world.

[Steal]

The verbage *does* say "ALL AMERICANS" what a brave new world.

Yeah, now mexamericans can become legal citizens if they take one for ol uncle sam. (damm, wheres that saracasm icon...)

[Plastic]

Guess I am in the minority here but I am gonna say it anyway. Every citizen of this nation should serve a mandatory 2 years in the military in peacetime or wartime, as of right now it is less than 1% who do so. I don't say this out of misplaced patriotism either. Let me put another way, a whole sh*tload more Americans would have the training needed to help fight off the ptb when they go for the kill shot.

I understand peoples mistrust and hatred of all things mandatory, but this would at least give folks a fighting chance against the barbarity to come.... they would have a chance of saving their families... maybe get a bit of wilderness survival training under their belts so they can still eat when the store shelves are empty...... first aid training... Any type of training you can imagine is freely available in service for the asking...

Or it may very well make for worse barbarians........... :D

[Skirnir]

Yes, because the ends justify the ends...and I am not a 'folk' thank you very much.

[Book]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hk_cayNIONo/SW1KVzzbzVI/AAAAAAAAPDA/ZDNWh_xLcyQ/s400/FatSoldier.jpg

Good luck with that one. Recruiters now reject 75% for obesity...lol.

:D

[wildcard]

Get those juden signed up today!

[zap]

Thank god I am too old now , 43 ;D

I'd like to see that, all these kids that can't get away from the TV/videos games or McDonalds, are 50 lbs overweight and he wants them to join the military, got to see how that works out for tptb.

There will be riots in the streets!!

[wildcard]

Oh I forgot, the jews can't play. They'll have a note from their doctor/lawyer/rabbi.

[Skirnir]

It is very unlikely this bill will amount to anything; its intent is more to stir debate.

That said, the chAir Force was after me for about a month after my first appearance on the President's List upon wrecking the grade curve. At first, I used a delay tactic, saying that I would need to think about the offer since I was in one of my better moods. Normally, I would have told him to shove his head up his ass and give himself a colonoscopy, and in retrospect that is what should happened. Like clockwork, the next week I received the same pitch, I wrote it off as an anomaly that some pinhead did not get the message, and said I was still thinking about it. They called again on the third week, and just to make conversation, I asked about the signing bonus. The response: $5K. What parsimony! What insult! Surely I am worth more than a measly 5 large. I counter-offered with $125K with the condition that I keep my hair.

Without response, he disconnected.

I suppose recruiters are exempt from the Do Not Call list...then again, I was likely the only prospect that was not overweight so they used tactics of desperation.

[undgrd]

Guess I am in the minority here but I am gonna say it anyway. Every citizen of this nation should serve a mandatory 2 years in the military in peacetime or wartime, as of right now it is less than 1% who do so. I don't say this out of misplaced patriotism either. Let me put another way, a whole sh*tload more Americans would have the training needed to help fight off the ptb when they go for the kill shot.

I understand peoples mistrust and hatred of all things mandatory, but this would at least give folks a fighting chance against the barbarity to come.... they would have a chance of saving their families... maybe get a bit of wilderness survival training under their belts so they can still eat when the store shelves are empty...... first aid training... Any type of training you can imagine is freely available in service for the asking...

Or it may very well make for worse barbarians........... :D


I can't argue the part about the training. However, the training can be had from former military anonymously if one chooses.
;)

[jetgraphics]

ROFLMAO
By law, all male citizens are obligated to train, fight, and die, on command. It's been part of the law since 1777.
See: militia duty.

All the act does, is mobilize them, which may awaken the sleeping sheeple.

[FunnyMoney]

It is intended to float an idea. Don't be fooled by the Harlem politician's stated reasons. The idea won't get much traction or much news. But it will be just enough and will be presented from time to time. Once the war economy is the only thing left standing and the nation , out of hunger, accepts that a war economy is better than no economy, then the days of mandatory service will approach

[EE_]

http://www.aztlan.net/jewsusarmedforces.htm
Los Angeles, Alta California - November 14, 2003 - (ACN) The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles made a startling revelation today when writer Phil Shuman wrote, "Only some 3,000 out of 1.4 million active duty servicemen and women are Jewish, about two-tenths of one percent. When it comes to Marines, the numbers are even more startling. It’s one out of 1,000. One-tenth of one percent."

[wildcard]

I don't remember meeting any jews when I was in the Marines. There could have been a few, but they sure as hell weren't open about it.

[Grand Master Melon]

I'll say the same thing I always say when this becomes an issue.....




JUST GIVE ME THE GUN ALREADY. No time to talk. I assure you I am sane. Just give me the freaking weapon.


The last thing they'll ever do is arm ages 18-30.


That's almost the whole of the military we have now.

[jetgraphics]

I don't remember meeting any jews when I was in the Marines. There could have been a few, but they sure as hell weren't open about it.

...Don't Ask - - - don't tell!

[NOOB]

If we are going to war or are in a war the draft should be in full swing. No deferments of any kind. Got a bad leg, we will put you in the kitchen peeling potatoes. To fat, we will run that off of you. Daddys rich, we don't care.

The curve of hawkishness always seems to correlate with how many deferments from service you have. Didn't dirty dick cheney get 5 deferments from nam. Bush went to the Alabama guard(eventually).


I bet we would get in a lot less wars if it was made a little more real to everyone. We have been at war for what 10 years now and for most of us we can't tell a difference in our daily lives.

[TPTB]

There are already too many unemployed. Those numbers need adjusting. :oo-->

You know, "Idle hands are the devils playground."

Can't have kids in the 18-42 age range getting too rambunctious. Perhaps it's time to thin the flock.

[Skirnir]

One of Pope Urban II's motivations to call the Crusades was to stop the petty states of Europe from warring with each-other as there was a surplus among the warrior caste.

This military nonsense may be passed in the name of 'stimulus', 'reduction of unemployment', etc. as it would have the effect of reducing the unemployment rate and would increase consumer spending.

That said, if I were to pay a million people to dig ditches and another million to refill them, that does nothing of use, and if anything it is a net drain upon the economy since it keeps wages from falling.

As to N00B's spouting, given that this bill has yet to be submitted, it is idle speculation.

[NOOB]

Don't you think war would be made less if everyone got a chance to tote a ruck? Its easy to send other people, not so easy to do it yourself.

[Skirnir]

Don't you think war would be made less if everyone got a chance to tote a ruck? Its easy to send other people, not so easy to do it yourself.


In practice, that does not happen. You presuppose that the rule of law applies to those with power.

[cedarchopper]

Rangle has been yapping about this for years. The PTB don't want a draft, that was one of the lessons learned from Vietnam...just like they learned to black out actual Press coverage of combat and dead soldiers.

Some of the branches are cutting back and not letting people re-up...this has been happening for a couple of years.

The PTB strategy is working very well, we have now been illegally at war for longer than Vietnam and there is hardly a peep out of young people.

[Ash_Williams]

It's not serious. He's just trying to point out people wouldn't support the war so easily if there was a chance they'd be in it. It's easy to send other people into war.

[Phoenix]

This basturd repeatedly introduces the bill, with full knowledge it ain't going ANYWHERE.

[sirgonzo420]

This basturd repeatedly introduces the bill, with full knowledge it ain't going ANYWHERE.


Ron Paul's bills don't go anywhere either (and I don't think he expects them too), but he still introduces them too.

[TPTB]

there is hardly a peep out of young people.

Another year or two of increasing unemployment and young people may begin doing more than peeping.

Putting them in uniforms and sending the rowdy ones to the mid east might be less expensive and socially less incendiary than throwing them in prison.

Just about the only industry left in this country is war.

[cedarchopper]

there is hardly a peep out of young people.

Another year or two of increasing unemployment and young people may begin doing more than peeping.

Putting them in uniforms and sending the rowdy ones to the mid east might be less expensive and socially less incendiary than throwing them in prison.

Just about the only industry left in this country is war.


Yes, all we will have left before it is all over are the consequences of war.

"Oliver Stone’s new documentary South of the Border, which interviews several left-wing leaders of Latin American countries, has unearthed a startling new allegation from Argentina’s former president Néstor Kirchner. During his interview with Stone, Kirchner said he once discussed global economic problems with former President George W. Bush. The former Argentine president says that when he suggested a new Marshall Plan, referring to the WW II-era European reconstruction plan, Bush “got angry” and suggested that “the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats.” Instead, Kirchner says, Bush suggested that “the best way to revitalize the economy is war”:

KIRCHNER: I said that a solution for the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war.

STONE: War, he said that?

KIRCHNER: He said that. Those were his exact words.

STONE: Is he suggesting that South America go to war?

KIRCHNER: Well, he was talking about the United States: ‘The Democrats had been wrong. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by wars.’ He said it very clearly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI446mXonu0&feature=player_embedded

[jetgraphics]

The following may be presumed to be heresy, and as such dismissed hastily.
Please bear with me, on this.

To the best of my understanding, from reading the organic documents, historical treatises, and related documents, "someone" pulled a fast one between 1776 and 1789.

The foundation of law:
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, government has two jobs:
1) secure rights and
2) govern those who consent.

Among those rights, were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (euphemism for private property ownership).
In other words, we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life (and all harmless acts in support of that right), liberty (natural and personal liberty), and absolute ownership of our selves, labor, and land (only upon one's private property can one pursue happiness without getting permission).

Absent consent, the only power government has is to secure rights to life, liberty and property.

HOWEVER, it was part of the law, since 1777, that the militia were under obligation to train, fight, and die, on command.
That appears to be a violation of the right to life, liberty, etc.

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Ergo, all obligatory civic duties, such as jury and militia duty, stem from CONSENT, because the Supreme court ruled so.

What most folks do not realize, is that CITIZENSHIP is a voluntary assertion, not imposed by birth (unless one was born a slave).

It would be absurd to presume that "free Americans" suddenly became subject "citizens", when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

In conclusion, the short answer is that the servant governments of these united States have never trespassed upon the natural and personal liberties of the American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled upon their private property within the boundaries of the United States of America.

But those p.d.b. U.S. citizens / residents residing at residences, duly enrolled and enumerated "human resources", are obligated to perform duties, share their wealth, comply with innumerable rules and regulations, because they gave consent. To compound matters, they are treated as cannon fodder, and used to enforce the dictates of the usurer / socialist alliance that rules much of the world.



----------------
References
----------------
The militia.

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, ..., under 45 years of age who are,... citizens of the United States....

Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, ... to present himself for and submit to registration ...

- - -

Sovereigns

At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

So far, I like this "republican form of government"...
People ARE the sovereigns, served by government.

What about citizens?

"The term citizen as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government and he who before was a "subject" of the King is now a citizen of the State."
State of North Carolina v. Manuel, (1838)

"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

Is that clear?
A citizen is a subject - by definition.
Yet the servant government has admitted, since its inception, that the people (not the citizenry) are sovereign.

And they certainly knew of the Americans who were NOT citizens, from inception.

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

Those Americans who did not consent to be subject citizens retained their sovereign status, and did not surrender their endowment of their Creator.

Did the USCON change the relationship with the private people?

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. ...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

From this, I conclude that the free Americans get NO RIGHTS or benefits from the USCON, a compact for specific performance between the States united and the United States, in Congress assembled. And only those who have an oath to it, are obligated to perform to it - or - those who were made subjects / citizens, and derive any benefit from it.

[Skirnir]

Have you tried renouncing citizenship? One must first obtain citizenship elsewhere before the State Dept. will, at its discretion, grant the request.

[FunnyMoney]

Just about the only industry left in this country is war.


Not quite yet. But to repeat what I said above, when this day comes, the PTB will be able to get better results with a draft than they did during Nam. They learn well. Of course, there will be all types of waivers for those of priviledge.

[Skirnir]

Just about the only industry left in this country is war.


Not quite yet. But to repeat what I said above, when this day comes, the PTB will be able to get better results with a draft than they did during Nam. They learn well. Of course, there will be all types of waivers for those of priviledge.


...for those of privileged, dual citizenship, and functioning second passports.

[jetgraphics]

Have you tried renouncing citizenship? One must first obtain citizenship elsewhere before the State Dept. will, at its discretion, grant the request.

Obviously, a subject citizen would have to submit to another sovereign.
I am referring to sovereign AMERICANS, who are NOT subjects.

I contacted the State department about passports for American nationals who were not citizens. They said to use the same application forms, omit sections that do not apply. And attach an addendum, if one so wished.

FWIW, in the 50 titles of the US CODE (1992 edition), I found only ONE mention of American nationals (not to be confused with U.S. nationals).

Title 8, U.S.C.Sec 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.
The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.

[jetgraphics]

Addendum:
For those who are new to the idea of American sovereignty, it may be confusing.
I haven't quite nailed down exactly WHY only the USA has a republican form of government in which the people are sovereigns, served by government.
When I contacted other embassies (around 30 or so, in 1989) I asked if they or any other government they knew of, adopted the U.S.'s republican form. They all replied in the negative.

If you're like me, you probably heard the claim that though America's government is not perfect, it's the best form in the world.

When I discovered that no other nation had a republican form, I was greatly troubled. If ours was the best, why didn't any other nation adopt it?

It would appear that no other government submits to the people, but dominates its subject people, regardless of the democratic form: parliamentary, constitutional monarchy, or other format.

Understanding that fact, means that among the peoples of this world, only Americans are endowed with the birthright to be sovereigns, social equals to any other monarch on this planet (which explains why Americans are not obligated to bow to nobility, under international law), and have no legal bar for marriage to nobility - unlike the commoners of their own country.

Sadly, after generations of indoctrination, that knowledge has been erased from the American people. But if you go back and read old publications, you will find instances that are puzzling to the modern socialist peon.

We were once kings and queens...
Served by public servants, who deferred to us...
Now we fight over the scraps of entitlements....
Sigh - how far we have fallen.

[Skirnir]

You sound like palani, whose arguments are about as cogent as Dubai is frigid...

That said, the 14th amendment confers citizenship by birth. If nothing else, silent enim leges inter arma.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

I'll say the same thing I always say when this becomes an issue.....




JUST GIVE ME THE GUN ALREADY. No time to talk. I assure you I am sane. Just give me the freaking weapon.


The last thing they'll ever do is arm ages 18-30.



Well yes, certainly that's true, but as noted above, that's 1% of the population and they are rigorously screened first. My prediction is that if a generalized draft was started, you'd get a lot of troublemakers.
That's almost the whole of the military we have now.

[Down1]

I believe in the middle ages, the military or the church accepting you was a persons only hope for a decent life, otherwise you were a peasant.
I see a similar situation coming here perhaps.
No need for a draft. For every opening recruiters will have many candidates for the job.

[Skirnir]

I believe in the middle ages, the military or the church accepting you was a persons only hope for a decent life, otherwise you were a peasant.
I see a similar situation coming here perhaps.
No need for a draft. For every opening recruiters will have many candidates for the job.


That is true; the only place hiring in this area is the military.

What puzzles me, however, is that there is plenty of money available for college, and given the dearth of prospects in the hard sciences e.g. computer science, chemistry, etc., one would think that more would take advantage.

[steyr_m]

It will never happen. Against the constitution for mandatory participation.

What? Are you saying there's never been a draft, even in the last 100 years?

[Skirnir]

It will never happen. Against the constitution for mandatory participation.

What? Are you saying there's never been a draft, even in the last 100 years?


Silent enim leges inter arma; laws are silent amidst the clash of arms.

[jetgraphics]

...the 14th amendment confers citizenship by birth.


I do NOT agree with that conclusion.

I trust that most if not all Americans are aware that involuntary servitude (slavery) is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

I can find no law that imposes civic duties (involuntary servitude) upon any American born within the United States of America.

However, if one is born in Federal territory and subject to its jurisdiction (United States), you're "theirs"... sorry.

Remember, the 13th amendment only forbids involuntary servitude IN THE STATES UNITED.

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.

Contrast that with the 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Why not state: "All persons born or naturalized within the United States"? or "and subject to THEIR jurisdiction"?

Because U.S. citizenship was only imposed upon those born within the jurisdiction of the Federal government and whose parents were subjects, as well. And we all should know which parties this citizenship was created for. (The U.S. government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. It has NO jurisdiction in a state outside the explicit delegations of power.)

U.S. citizens can only "reside" as residents in a residence, in a state.
They cannot be inhabitants, with a domicile, in a state. In fact, if one acquires a "foreign domicile" they lose U.S. citizenship (not American nationality).

If the United States, in Congress assembled, can impose citizenship (and civic duties) upon an infant, born within its jurisdiction, but in the States united, involuntary servitude is forbidden, one can see why having a DOMICILE in the United States of America is crucial to defeat the presumption that one is a slave of the Congress.
.........

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Either U.S. citizenship (and its obligatory duties) is voluntary servitude - or - the 13th amendment prohibition does not extend to "U.S. citizens / residents" who reside in a state, but are domiciled in Federal jurisdiction, duly registered with an address. For they are domestic to the foreign corporation that has no qualms at squandering the wealth and lives of its people.

{I omit the numerous citations that express that the American people are sovereign. No servant government could impose subjugation upon the people.}

[Saul Mine]

ATTENTION YOUNG MEN

When you get that letter from the president, go ahead and report like it says. Take a couple of witnesses with you. Then don't take any orders from anybody. They don't have jurisdiction over you, so their orders are meaningless. When they want the doctors to examine you, you have a right to decline the examination. They can't induct you without an examination. If they tell you to sign something, refuse. If they tell you to go into this room or that room, don't go.

The notice to report to the center is mandatory, but military service is voluntary. If you don't sign or do the required "Take one step forward," you are not inducted. They might lock you up and feed you for a couple of days while they piss and moan, but you are not their slave and there isn't any way they can get around that.

[FunnyMoney]

....you are not their slave and there isn't any way they can get around that.


They are looking for a way around that. My best guess is, as we have seen in other places throughout history, that they will find the way.

[jetgraphics]

ATTENTION YOUNG MEN

When you get that letter from the president, go ahead and report like it says. Take a couple of witnesses with you. Then don't take any orders from anybody. They don't have jurisdiction over you, so their orders are meaningless. When they want the doctors to examine you, you have a right to decline the examination. They can't induct you without an examination. If they tell you to sign something, refuse. If they tell you to go into this room or that room, don't go.

The notice to report to the center is mandatory, but military service is voluntary. If you don't sign or do the required "Take one step forward," you are not inducted. They might lock you up and feed you for a couple of days while they piss and moan, but you are not their slave and there isn't any way they can get around that.

If you claim citizenship, you have accepted the obligation to serve.
It's been the law, since 1777.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Saul Mine is correct. The law says when you receive the letter, you have to APPEAR. It doesn't say you have to accept service via signature or oath. They will try to get both. They say "Take one step forward and raise your right hand" and that's the oath. If you don't do this, you aren't inducted, like Saul said.



ATTENTION YOUNG MEN

When you get that letter from the president, go ahead and report like it says. Take a couple of witnesses with you. Then don't take any orders from anybody. They don't have jurisdiction over you, so their orders are meaningless. When they want the doctors to examine you, you have a right to decline the examination. They can't induct you without an examination. If they tell you to sign something, refuse. If they tell you to go into this room or that room, don't go.

The notice to report to the center is mandatory, but military service is voluntary. If you don't sign or do the required "Take one step forward," you are not inducted. They might lock you up and feed you for a couple of days while they piss and moan, but you are not their slave and there isn't any way they can get around that.

[MNeagle]

Except it needs to add "Women" too to his warning.

[Book]

Except it needs to add "Women" too to his warning.


http://www.ils.unc.edu/dpr/path/era/ERAactivists.jpeg

Did the Law ever get around to adding women to the Draft registration statute?

Seems silly that an 18 year-old guy's twin sister can still be exempt in 2010...lol.

:oo-->

[jetgraphics]

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

If you have any data that refutes these rulings, preferably of an affidavit or public record, please present them.