Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Newly introduced bill: H.R. 5741 - "Universal National Service Ac

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Rangel has been doing this for years. Nearly every year he introduces at least one version of a military draft reinstatement bill. While he claims to oppose a volunteer army and want the return of a draft, he seems to do it as a political stunt most of the time, as even he generally votes against his own bill in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes."

:| Basically, it sounds like the intent is bringing back the draft, but trying to get around it being called out as that by saying not everybody has to do their position in fighting, they can do other support services. And as usual, I find myself frustrated and disturbed by the vague as hell "and for other purposes" at the end. At first from what you said I thought this was going to be a bill to try to introduce enslavement to the government by turning things like the presently optional government volunteer programs into contradictorily named "mandatory volunteerism programs." I've heard concerns raised about this possibly happening before based upon suspicious recent legislation. Do you happen to know of anywhere that simply states what those "other purposes" are in there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first I've heard of something like this ever being brought

to discussion in the American Congress, and it serves as a frightening

wake-up call. I feel I've been naive, as this is a level of evil that

I didn't think we were close to having to deal with. I thought perhaps

one day, but not now.

If a bill such as this were to pass, it would mean the end of America

as a free society. That a politician could feel safe in bringing this

to the table (let alone even whispering it in a dark alley) tells me

that the totalitarianism is no longer knocking at our door, but has

grown impatient and is taking an axe to it. With the passing of such a

bill, the time for intellectual warfare will have ended and the time

for armed conflict will have begun.

Tell everyone you know. Put it on your blogs, your twitters, your

facebooks, and everything else you can think of. The passing of Health

Care Reform is evidence enough that this national service bill is (as

much as it hurts to say) an actual threat. As individuals, we can not

afford to let this bill gain any steam. We must kill it before it ever

gets the chance.

What follows is a description of the bill and a listing of the parts that

were most interesting/important in my mind:

On July 15th, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York introduced H.R. 5741,

the 'Universal National Service Act'. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.5741:

The bill's purpose is "To require all persons in the United States

between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a

member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance

of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the

induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet

end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other

purposes."

From Sec. 102 of the Bill:

(a) Obligation for Service - It is the obligation of every citizen of

the United States, and every other person residing in the United

States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of

national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the

provisions of this title.

(B) Forms of National Service - The national service obligation under

this title shall be performed either--

---(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed

services; or

---(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President,

promotes the national defense, including national or community service

and service related to homeland security.

From Sec. 103 of the Bill:

(B) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in

section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--

---(1) a declaration of war is in effect;

---(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the

President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform

military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for

the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service;

or

---(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are

engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional

authorization for the use of military force.

From Sec. 104 of the Bill:

© Early Termination- The period of national service for a person

under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period

under the following circumstances:

---(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an

active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of

at least two years, in which case the period of basic military

training and education actually served by the person shall be counted

toward the term of enlistment.

---(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or

midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States

Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard

Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

---(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer

candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a

Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to

serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion

of the program.

---(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.

From Sec. 105 of the Bill:

(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are

necessary to carry out this title.

(B) Matter To Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall

include specification of the following:

---(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order

for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under

this title.

---(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and

of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

---(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction

under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be

notified of such selection.

---(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the

induction of persons under this title and the registration,

examination, and classification of such persons.

---(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to

inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this

title, including questions of conscientious objection.

---(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing

their national service obligation under this title through civilian

service.

---(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to

carry out this title.

From Sec. 109 of the Bill:

(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be

construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and

service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of

sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is

conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.

(B) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims

exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and

whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--

---(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the

President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or

---(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously

opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform

national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a)

and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.

Edited by Alexandros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be the fourth time for this piece of fascism. The significant fact is that the underlying concept was supported by our reigning czar during the presidential elections. I predict that Rangel's bill will die -- this time -- but it's not impossible that Obama's "I'll give you tuition money if you sacrifice yourself to society" is the entry point for a successful bill. As with Obamacare, the secret is to not be explicit about the proposal, so you start with a more saleable "If you do this job we give you that money" and in committee turn it in "Do this job! Maybe you'll be eligible for money".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of this CSPAN interview with Rahm Emanuel on his book "The Plan." He seems to be pretty open about his feelings that forcing Americans to do this will give them a sense of collective pride, he wants all Americans to have a "joint experience" a "common experience" so that we can "come together" and "get things done" for America (he says "in case there is another terrorist act or a natural disaster which are becoming more frequent.")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhfUHgenqXU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they won't ever actually make a mandatory thing like that. What they will do is tie it to student loans.

Don't you think that the majority of people thinking that is exactly what is being counted on?

..and don't you think that tying it to student loans is a perfect inroad. Who's to say that tying it to student loans won't turn into tying it to being allowed a driver's license, or a building permit... or... the healthcare which is now going to be government controlled?

You know that saying about bringing a frog to a boil? Here it is, in real tangible form.

Many people I've discussed this with have shrugged and said "he brings this up every year" (true, but they keep adding more stuff on). Don't you think that's a great strategy? The first couple years it was reported on by most news outlets. This time... not a peep. Could it be that waiting for the outrage to die down is a good strategy to eventually sneek it past? Boring your enemies into submission?

Saying "that will never actually happen" is a very dangerous road to take. Many things have happened over the past couple years that the majority of Americans would've said that about and yet here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha, "House Panel Charges NY Rep. Rangel With Ethics Violations" http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/house-panel-charges-new-york-rep-charles-rangel-with-ethics-violations/19565191

This bill isn't on the list of unacceptable unethical stuff from him he's being investigated for, though it should be. However, it says in one part, "The timing of the announcement ensures that it will stretch into the fall campaign, and Republicans are certain to make it an issue as they try to capture majority control of the House." Make it harder for him to stay in congress at all. Perhaps he'll get kicked out before he can continue with efforts at bills like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Rangel bring up this bill up originally to make an anti-war statement? I remember reading that he opposed the Iraq war, and said that if the draft were reinstated, the American public would angrily retaliate and call for the end of our military involvement there.

From a November 2006 Washington Post article:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq."There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900376_pf.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...