Before I begin, let me state that I am not against the entire notion of National Service, the idea that is being bandied about by many of the Presidential Candidates. What I am against is the idea of mandatory National Service. I find the perceived growth in support for this idea only adds to the growing list of evidence that fundamentally, Americans do not understand or appreciate our Constitution.
I contend that all mandatory national service is unconstitutional, whether the Supreme Court says so or not. The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
While the Draft has been defended and upheld through the use of the Congress' Constitutional Power to "raise armies," there can be no doubt that conscription is indeed a transgression upon someone's life. In 2001, Chang Yung-chien wrote in the Taipei Times of conscription in his own country:
Society as a whole has paid an enormous invisible price for the conscription system. Friends of mine waited almost a year to be conscripted--doing nothing (of course, two years of military service are also spent doing nothing). Still more people see their lifetime plans interrupted. They waste the most creative time of their lives writing military reports that do not help the nation's economy or the people's livelihood.
How many people have left the country before conscription age just to evade those two years, and come back only after they are too old for conscription? How many people have cut their fingers, damaged their eyesight, or otherwise harmed their bodies? How can it be beneficial to the country? How many mutinies have we had in the armed forces?
And from the early days of our Republic, great men like Daniel Webster vehemently opposed conscription. In 1814, Webster spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives, saying:
Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No sire, indeed it is not.
The Constitution is libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves.
Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and bailful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, not when the safety of their country and its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it?
Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty.
An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children by the provisions of our government. It has been the labor of other men, at other times, to mitigate and reform the powers of government by construction; to support the rights of personal security by every species of favorable and benign interpretation, and thus to infuse a free spirit into governments not friendly in their general structure and formation to public liberty.
In our American framework, nothing can overcome Webster's argument. Even in the case of a just war (and seldom does any war meet that high bar) the government has no right to force any citizen to serve against their will. The Government must rely upon the voluntary service of the people. In times of true national threat, true patriots will come forward. The mere existence of the Selective Service belies disbelief in the patriotism of the American People. Just as we saw recruitment in the Armed Services spike after 9/11, we have seen it decline, and then be dragged up by the supplement and expansion of signing bonuses and other inducements in the face of an unjust occupation of Iraq. The American People know when their country needs them and their Commander in Chief values them, as well as they know the opposite.
In this Presidential campaign, we see Presidential candidates of all stripes talking about National Service in the forms of community, or other service. All of these ideas are welcome, and perhaps even needed- but only if they are voluntary. Just as any citizen should not be asked to go to war against their will, no citizen should be told that they will not receive their High School Diploma if they do not perform community service. It is antithetical to our founding principles.
And yet, here is what we find:
- Chris Dodd would require public high school students to do 100 hours of service.
- John Edwards would require community service for high school students, in order for them to receive their diploma.
- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson would all support incentivizing service, and Clinton and Biden support the creation of a U.S. Public Service Academy.
- Most of the Republicans pay lip-service to service, but only McCain has proposed anything, which consisted of a shorter enlistment period in the military and an $18,000 signing bonus.
Time Magazine did an in-depth analysis of the national service question, and summarized the candidate's positions.
Find it at:
http://www.time.com/...
Dodd and Edwards have unacceptable positions, and I believe that the progressive movement, which has become the nation's premier movement to defend our Constitution and our rights, must make it clear that we will not simply be for Habeas Corpus or the right to a fair trial, but also for the fundamental rights of life and liberty which mandatory service of any kind infringes.
I speak as someone who, if actively offerred an option to engage in such service during my time in High School, would have most likely taken advantage of the opportunity. I speak as someone who, if a U.S. Public Service Academy existed, would have most likely applied to that Academy. I speak as someone who does my best to help my community, and who believes my life holds no meaning unless it is largely devoted to bettering my society. But on these things, I can speak only for myself. I have no right to tell anyone else that they must perform service, or they must attend a Public Service Academy, or that they must devote their lives to their communities and their society.
No matter how much we believe national service creates better communities, or develops greater social consciousness, all those good intentions are broken upon the rocks of the Constitution's wisdom. I only wonder whether that wisdom is now lost on too many Americans.