Servitude to be required of your Kids

ktm rider wrote:Alot of people say that volunteerism is a good thing. And it is. But once it is required is is no longer volunteerism...

Or is this program like when I was in the Navy and we were ordered to volunteer for projects

Good point about volunteerism.

As the owner of my own business, I command a steady stream of "willing" volunteers.

McKoker wrote:So much for "making" your kids do chores...I mean....since it's unconstitutional.

What you require, a private school or I'll even go as far to suggest what a public school requires your kids to do is your own damn business. The Federal Government has no right to require you to perform any task. You could argue they require many things like paying taxes but lets be realistic, when you're requiring services be performed it goes over the line.

The next question is what is going to constitute public service and who's going to decide that? Is working for the church a public service? If not is the church going to suffer because the service little Johnny would have been volunteering to them is now taken up by the time mandated by the government elsewhere? What about kids that are already volunteering their time to places that may not fit into the governments agenda.

Any face you put on this exudes socialism.

Good point Richard.
My youngest son is a Volunteer Fireman and an EMT for TWO towns. He puts in about 400hrs a year, is he exempt or will he be required to SERVE in different Government sponsored POGRAM?

oops.....PROGRAM.

Just for you, Ed.A.




And here is the whole library

http://www.library.gsu.edu/spcoll/Colle ... abor01.htm

It's pretty entertaining to look at history through political cartoons.

I wonder if a Military enlistee would be considered time served opposed to a draftee?

I think it would be a good idea to require some type of work be preformed by all those recieveing any type of public assistance & see how many opt to find work & get off of welfare. And welfare should be for an alloted amount of time just like unemployment, when your times up your out on the street.

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, so I may have missed something.

by developing a plan to require 50 hours

The key word here is "require".

Better brush up on this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm

samhill wrote:I think it would be a good idea to require some type of work be preformed by all those recieveing any type of public assistance & see how many opt to find work & get off of welfare. And welfare should be for an alloted amount of time just like unemployment, when your times up your out on the street.

Kind of what the Republicans did with the Contract with America. Actually,

sawmill wrote:And welfare should be for an alloted amount of time just like unemployment, when your times up your out on the street.

is exactly what the Republicans did with the Contract with America.

"Required Servitude " or whatever he wants to call it is immature. Who will keep track of who does what. Bigger government. If everyone is being paid to serve where is all the money coming from? This guy is going to break the bank. Baugh, I'm rambling on now.

The welfare scum are being paid now & doing nothing for it. Make them earn that check. The system that pays them is already in place.

Does anyone remember Elion Gonzales? The little boy from Cuba who was snatched from his relatives at gunpoint in Miami by Madelin Allbright and her thugs of the Clinton administration???? Well little Elion was repatriated to Fidel Castro. No doubt a hero of president elect Jimmy Carter. There was an article about a year ago that little Elion had to do a summer of forced labor in the fields of Cuba. It certainly seems like Jimmy Carter a known marxist (from the company he keeps)and his lovely wife who for the first time in her life can feel actually good about her country. Now he wants to indoctronate our children in the communist way!

"There has also been some question raised about the draft in regards to the 13th Amendment. Surely the draft, for at least some, constitutes involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th. The only exception the 13th contemplates for slavery or involuntary servitude is as a punishment for a duly convicted crime. However, the courts have ruled that the intent of the 13th was never to abolish the draft, and that serving in the military, even against your will, is not involuntary servitude. These "duties owed to the government" are exempted from 13th Amendment protection. In Butler v Perry (240 US 328 [1916]), the Supreme Court wrote:

[The 13th Amendment] introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

Butler did not directly concern the draft. It addressed laws that required able-bodied men to work on state roads for their maintenance when called by the state. However, its implications for the draft are clear and a case decided just two years later (Arver v US [245 US 366 {1918}]) set it in stone:
A]s we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_drft.html


there, that covers the draft. I will NOT allow my child to be brain washed by these people.

Can any body say Hitler Youth or Brown Shirts There is video proof of their intentions in the link.

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Emanuel volunteers Americans to do 'a lot'
'If you're worried about having to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes'
Posted: November 13, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A video of a 2006 interview with now-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for president-elect Barack Obama reveals plans for mandatory induction for all young adults into a civilian "force."

"If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told the interviewer, a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News at the time.

WND reported last weekend when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=80829

JohnMck wrote:"There has also been some question raised about the draft in regards to the 13th Amendment. Surely the draft, for at least some, constitutes involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th. The only exception the 13th contemplates for slavery or involuntary servitude is as a punishment for a duly convicted crime. However, the courts have ruled that the intent of the 13th was never to abolish the draft, and that serving in the military, even against your will, is not involuntary servitude. These "duties owed to the government" are exempted from 13th Amendment protection. In Butler v Perry (240 US 328 [1916]), the Supreme Court wrote:

[The 13th Amendment] introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

Butler did not directly concern the draft. It addressed laws that required able-bodied men to work on state roads for their maintenance when called by the state. However, its implications for the draft are clear and a case decided just two years later (Arver v US [245 US 366 {1918}]) set it in stone:
A]s we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_drft.html


there, that covers the draft. I will NOT allow my child to be brain washed by these people.

The case in question involved servitude without compensation. It is the duty of the US to pay soldiers, and for states to pay inmates for their services. The powers of congress in Article I, Section 8 clearly grant the congress the power to raise an army and, confer a duty to support it financially. Since it stated no methods, nor prohibited any, for raising an army, it retains any and all power over this duty unless specifically changed by constitutional amendment. The draft is not illegal involuntary servitude so long as the soldiers are compensated and funding is reinstated every two years by congressional budget approval.

As for other areas of service, it would be unconstitutional for the US government to require services of any kind, especially without pay.

To defend the nation. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and others are quite clear in their writings, that entangling alliances is not in the best interest of the nation or the people. Again, what is it that the Conservatives are conserving? Anyway, With the precedent set by the last crop of congress critters semi-declared wars can become something to look forward to.