Does the 13th ammendment make a military draft unconstitutional?

[Jacobtm]

If Congress ever enacted a draft again, and someone challenged it saying that military conscription amounts to "involuntary servitude", and is illegal under the 13th ammendment, would they have a chance of winning in the Supreme Court? I know in 1918 the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, but in the modern day, they could possibly rule differently, just as Plessy v. Furgeson was overturned with Brown V. Board of Ed?

Regardless of their chance of winning, doesn't the 13th ammendment make a draft unconstitutional? Seems that way to me...

[Emsworth]

The Thirteenth Amendment does not make a military draft unconstitutional, because conscription was never permitted by the Constitution in the first place.

[Peter]

Lets negate the enumerated powers question: Does a State have the power to conscript its citizens in light of the 13th Amendment?

[Emsworth]

Lets negate the enumerated powers question: Does a State have the power to conscript its citizens in light of the 13th Amendment?

I would argue that, in general, a state does not have the power to conscript citizens. The text of the amendment does not merely prohibit involuntary servitude for private individuals. The only exception it makes relates to convicted felons.

But whether states may force individuals to serve on juries is a more difficult question, and does not admit of an easy answer.

[A18]

It was always somewhat ambiguous just what the Thirteenth Amendment was supposed to prohibit. What qualifies as "servitude?" I do not think the word was employed in its most absolute sense. There is a difference between requiring someone to appear in court, and "servitude" as traditionally understood. But conscription is undoubtedly "servitude" even in this more narrow sense, and by definition involuntary.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In the context of the history of the U.S. Constitution, perfoming one's duty as a citizen to be part of the "well-regulated Militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment can hardly be considered "servitude".  While the 13th Amendment would keep non-citizens from being drafted, and in light of the failure of the ERA to be adopted, might keep women from being drafted, able-bodied male citizen of legal age are part of the militia and subject to service in time of war or emergency.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes it does.

[Jacobtm]

In the context of the history of the U.S. Constitution, perfoming one's duty as a citizen to be part of the "well-regulated Militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment can hardly be considered "servitude".  While the 13th Amendment would keep non-citizens from being drafted, and in light of the failure of the ERA to be adopted, might keep women from being drafted, able-bodied male citizen of legal age are part of the militia and subject to service in time of war or emergency.

Being forced, against your will, to enter into a warzone where you are expected to shoot at others and be shot at isn't "servitude"? What is it then? And where in the second ammendment does it say anything about Congress being able to force people to join the militia? It just states that a well regulated militia is essential, and that for the purpose of one, people can own weapons.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The militia is all the able-bodied male citizens of an area.  Granted most male American citizens are part of the unorganized militia, but they are still in the militia. If you don't want to be part of the militia then renounce your citizenship or become unfit to serve.  Being a citizen imposes certain duties as well as grants certain rights. Serving on a jury or in the militia are part of those duties that come with the responsibility of being a citizen.

[Jacobtm]

The militia is all the able-bodied male citizens of an area.  Granted most male American citizens are part of the unorganized militia, but they are still in the militia. If you don't want to be part of the militia then renounce your citizenship or become unfit to serve.  Being a citizen imposes certain duties as well as grants certain rights. Serving on a jury or in the militia are part of those duties that come with the responsibility of being a citizen.

What justification do you have for that last claim? I see the 13th Ammendment as garunteeing me that I will never be forced into involuntary servitude, and I definately don't want to serve in the military.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I've already given the justification.  Apparently you want a society in which citizens have only privledges and not responsibilities.  Such societies don't last very long.

[Jacobtm]

I've already given the justification.  Apparently you want a society in which citizens have only privledges and not responsibilities.  Such societies don't last very long.

You didn't give a Constitutional argument as to why Congress has the power to conscript individuals, you just gave a justification of why you think conscription is justified.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Slavery is illegal, people! End of story.

[jerusalemcar5]

It is not a civic duty to serve in the military.  If you want to join, fine, your choice, whatever.  Conscription is involuntary and is servitude.  Therefore, it violates the 13th Amendment.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

It is not a civic duty to serve in the military.  If you want to join, fine, your choice, whatever.  Conscription is involuntary and is servitude.  Therefore, it violates the 13th Amendment.

For once I agree with you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I've already given the justification.  Apparently you want a society in which citizens have only privledges and not responsibilities.  Such societies don't last very long.

You didn't give a Constitutional argument as to why Congress has the power to conscript individuals, you just gave a justification of why you think conscription is justified.

No, you didn't agree with my justification as being a Constitutional argument, which is different. The one I gave is essentially the same as that provided by the Supreme Court in Arver v. United States.  Still, I'll provide an alternative justification, since you are unwilling to accept it. Conscription is a form of corvée labor which is a type of direct tax.  Corvée labor has been used both before and after the Thirteenth Amendment.  At most, the restrictions concerning all direct taxes would apply to conscription.

[Emsworth]

In the context of the history of the U.S. Constitution, perfoming one's duty as a citizen to be part of the "well-regulated Militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment can hardly be considered "servitude". 

While participating in a jury or in a militia need not be considered "servitude," participating in the military certainly should be so considered.

There is no enumerated power that would authorize Congress to conscript individuals into the military (as opposed to the militia).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once you accept that militia service is not servitude, the fact Congress can call the militia forth to "be employed in the Service of the United States" is clearly Constitutional and part of its enumerated powers.

[Emsworth]

Once you accept that militia service is not servitude, the fact Congress can call the militia forth to "be employed in the Service of the United States" is clearly Constitutional and part of its enumerated powers.

Certainly, I accept that. As I said, while Congress may require citizens to serve in the militia, it cannot compel them to serve in the military.

This is not simply a technical semantic distinction; it has several important consequences. Firstly, the militia may be called into the service of the United States for only three purposes: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 15). The military, on the other hand, can be used for many other purposes, such as invading foreign countries. In effect, a citizen can be required to assist in repelling an invasion as a member of the militia, but not in invading another country as a member of the military.

Secondly, members of the militia retain several rights that members of the military do not. For instance, the Fifth Amendment states that cases arising in the military can be prosecuted without grand jury indictments, whether at wartime or at peacetime. On the other hand, cases arising in the militia can be prosecuted without indictments only during time of war or "public danger."