Anti-War action gone too far? City has the Feds on them.

[glynch]

Bigtexx doesn't believe in serving because he feels his generic MBA job makes him too important. These folks don't want their kids to serve for more principled reasons.

[GladiatoRowdy]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx nice dodge of the question. It's very much up for debate whether other methods lead to more accurate information

You asked "would you support torture if..." and I responded "I would not support torture because..." I didn't dodge anything, I answered your question, which is more than you ever do.

It might be up for debate if anyone were debating. The only evidence that has been proffered in the torture threads has been that of interrogation experts saying that it is counterproductive and actually stops the subject from giving useful information. The only thing you have produced is your speculation and the "OMG, what if 24 happened for real" defense.

[Refman]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes military recruitment either.

The power to raise and support an army. Military recruitment is implied in this power.

[JuanValdez]

Originally Posted by Refman The power to raise and support an army. Military recruitment is implied in this power.

Does that suggest that it should be unfettered by reasonable local regulation?

[HayesStreet]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes military recruitment either.

Yeah, pretty much the right to raise an army is in there. EDIT: oops, refman beat me to it.

Originally Posted by JuanValdez Does that suggest that it should be unfettered by reasonable local regulation?

Pretty much. The same people that are advocating this move have a high probability of banning recruiting altogether. They'd call that a 'reasonable local regulation.'

This is pretty clear ground. especially since the Selective Service Act was ruled on by the Supreme Court. It ruled it would have made no sense to give the power to raise an army to the federal government and then allow local/state authorities or anyone else to restrict their ability to do so.

[rocketsjudoka]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes military recruitment either.

Just to follow on Refman and Hayestreet's point it is legal to have a draft so it follows that Fed can raise an army by pretty much any means.

[HayesStreet]

Originally Posted by rocketsjudoka Just to follow on Refman and Hayestreet's point it is legal to have a draft so it follows that Fed can raise an army by pretty much any means.

I completely support these local communities if they want to pass some symbolic initiative that reflects their opinion of recruiting by the military. But anything that structurally inhibits that recruiting just isn't viable. It has an inside out affect on the country as a whole that just can't be the province of local authorities.

[JuanValdez]

Originally Posted by HayesStreet Pretty much. The same people that are advocating this move have a high probability of banning recruiting altogether. They'd call that a 'reasonable local regulation.' This is pretty clear ground. especially since the Selective Service Act was ruled on by the Supreme Court. It ruled it would have made no sense to give the power to raise an army to the federal government and then allow local/state authorities or anyone else to restrict their ability to do so.

I agree that it is unlikely that the Federal Government will allow local authorities to restrict their ability to raise an army, I don't think your argument on reasonable regulation is valid. I could see a court potentially agreeing that a restriction on recruiting minors is for the good of the people and a reasonable measure that the Army must work around. But, no court would see a total ban on recruiting as reasonable. There isn't some sort of slippery slope here.

[HayesStreet]

Originally Posted by JuanValdez I agree that it is unlikely that the Federal Government will allow local authorities to restrict their ability to raise an army, I don't think your argument on reasonable regulation is valid. I could see a court potentially agreeing that a restriction on recruiting minors is for the good of the people and a reasonable measure that the Army must work around. But, no court would see a total ban on recruiting as reasonable. There isn't some sort of slippery slope here.

The point is that it isn't up to the local authority to regulate the building of the federal army. Courts are not going to allow a local authority to do that - it simply isn't within the scope of their power to do so. This isn't one of those cases where it is unclear, this is an enumerated power of the federal government clearly spelled out by the Constitution.

If that weren't the case, then there certainly is a slippery slope. If you open up 'reasonable regulation' to be decided by the localities, then they'll use it as per my example.