Anti-Conscription Amendment [Rejected]

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I didn't add it in, this was TJ's text. My main goal is to ensure the option remains available in emergency circumstances. I merely reintroduced this because I had a hunch it might perform better then it did previously. It has and it would have passed had Marokai done his job and closed the vote after the maximum five days like the OSPR stipulates:

Section 4: Rules for Voting on Amendment(s) and the Changing of Votes
1. Once a senator calls for a vote on the Amendment(s) under consideration, per Clause 2 of Section 3 of this article, or once debate time expires, per clauses 3 and 4 of Section 3 of this article, the PPT shall open a vote on said Amendment(s). This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if a majority of office-holding Senators has approved or rejected said Amendment(s). Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained.

2. If needed, an injunction may be brought by a Senator to keep voting on the Amendment(s) under consideration open for another forty-eight (48) hours after which time the voting shall close. This injunction must be seconded by another Senator.

3. Until an Amendment(s) under consideration has garnered enough votes to pass or fail, no Senator shall be prohibited from changing his or her vote on the legislation. Once said Amendment(s) has garnered enough votes to pass or fail, all Senators who have voted will be prohibited from changing their votes.

Marokai can decide what happens with the curent vote, since it is his mess. It probably won't get 2/3rds passage on the final vote anyway unless a compromise can be reached and such doesn't seem to be of interest to the supporters of the underlying measure.

[Senator Napoleon]

"Had Marokai done his job..."

Seems to be the story of this Senate, does it not?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Of course not, as slavery would still be involved and discrimination would still be involved. Simply put, adding more discrimination into this nasty mixture of discrimination and slavery cannot be construed as an improvement.

I think you are missing the point. We want the people to be able to vote on whether or not they think we should allow this depressing and archaic form of enslavement, and we want you to do what you can to give them that opportunity. And if they do not get that opportunity, the cowardice of some to take a positive stand on a moral issue will be to blame. I would hate to see that happen.

I disagree. We should do our job and vote based on what we think is in the best interests of the people also. I don't think baning this completely is, I think it is contrary to public safety and therefore I will vote against it. You can use whatever hyperbolic rhetoric you want to criticize that decision, it won't change my mind.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"Had Marokai done his job..."

Seems to be the story of this Senate, does it not?

The combination of your style and vision of the job is what sunk your bid for the job. Loose one or the other and it would have been yours.

[For Oklahoma]

everyone in congress [...] essential personnel

lol good one

Can anyone else appropriate money?

I don't think Congress itself can properly appropriate money....

[President Marokai]

I direct you all to my post in the Senate Analysis thread as an explanation for my absence from the Senate. In short: I was sick, spent most of three days in bed, asked BK to take over the Senate for me, and he apparently refused. I followed procedure with my absence, someone else did not. The only person you can blame for my absence at that point would be the flu.

If Napoleon has any problem with my performance in the PPT position I would enjoy hearing his list of criticisms prior to the last four days. Since he seems so furious with me, he must have such large controversies to point to that clearly discredit me for this job; a job I have performed promptly in, according to procedure in, and have done in the past just as well.


In regards to the voting on this amendment, and the legality of Polnut's vote change, I will rule in Yankee's favor. Voting on amendments ends after five days, whether I'm hear to call it at that specific moment or not. Because of that, I will not count Polnut's vote change, and because of the 5-4 vote at the time of the vote's end, I will consider Yankee's amendment passed.

Since I suspect some of you will have issues with that, I'll leave this bill open to debate for another day before we deal with a final vote. It is so ordered!

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A 5-4 result will not pass the underlying measure.


Therefore, I will ask again if their is room for a compromise that could generate a passable result or not?

[President Marokai]

A 5-4 result will not pass the underlying measure.


Therefore, I will ask again if their is room for a compromise that could generate a passable result or not?

I'd really like to know the same thing, because I would like this to pass somehow.

[For Oklahoma]

Motion to move to a final vote because god forbid we actually vote on the bill after nearly a month of debate.

[President Marokai]

Actually, as of right now, this Amendment has no official sponsor. Thanks to Scott pointing out to me that Napoleon is no longer a Senator, this Amendment needs someone to step up for sponsorship, and we need to wait 48 hours afterward. If no one assumes sponsorship, this Amendment will be withdrawn.

Neener neener.

[Governor Scott]

I would be honored to assume sponsorship.

[President Marokai]

I would be honored to assume sponsorship.

Senators have 48 hours to object.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

everyone in congress [...] essential personnel

lol good one

Can anyone else appropriate money?

I don't think Congress itself can properly appropriate money....

That is an issue of competence which I would most certainly agree with you on. However, in terms of constitutionally authorized powers, only congress can appropriate money.

[For Oklahoma]

But do you understand my point, Yankee? Why is it that we can sit here and legislate and say "you all have to serve in the military cuz we say so, but we don't have to." Why is that fair? It isn't. If this bill passes and we are invaded, I will resign from whatever office I hold and will be the first to sign up for military service.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But do you understand my point, Yankee? Why is it that we can sit here and legislate and say "you all have to serve in the military cuz we say so, but we don't have to." Why is that fair? It isn't. If this bill passes and we are invaded, I will resign from whatever office I hold and will be the first to sign up for military service.

Because you have to have political leadership. If we had a house of lords, I would agree with your point. But with an elected congress, the people can choose and change who is in charge and if someone isn't performing their duties as Senator. They can be voted out and then be subjected to the draft. I view representatives as servants of the people and subject to their whims and desires at election time. They aren't static lifetime members, immune from any accountability.

[asexual trans victimologist]

But do you understand my point, Yankee? Why is it that we can sit here and legislate and say "you all have to serve in the military cuz we say so, but we don't have to." Why is that fair? It isn't. If this bill passes and we are invaded, I will resign from whatever office I hold and will be the first to sign up for military service.

Because you have to have political leadership. If we had a house of lords, I would agree with your point. But with an elected congress, the people can choose and change who is in charge and if someone isn't performing their duties as Senator. They can be voted out and then be subjected to the draft. I view representatives as servants of the people and subject to their whims and desires at election time. They are static lifetime members, immune from any accountability.

So you view political positions as effectively a form of national service in themselves regardless of the state of the draft?

[Secretary Polnut]

Sweet merciful crap...

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But do you understand my point, Yankee? Why is it that we can sit here and legislate and say "you all have to serve in the military cuz we say so, but we don't have to." Why is that fair? It isn't. If this bill passes and we are invaded, I will resign from whatever office I hold and will be the first to sign up for military service.

Because you have to have political leadership. If we had a house of lords, I would agree with your point. But with an elected congress, the people can choose and change who is in charge and if someone isn't performing their duties as Senator. They can be voted out and then be subjected to the draft. I view representatives as servants of the people and subject to their whims and desires at election time. They are static lifetime members, immune from any accountability.

So you view political positions as effectively a form of national service in themselves regardless of the state of the draft?

I don't consider them the equivalent of serving in combat, but essential governemnt positions are just as important as say the behind the lines logistical support and staffing in the military.

[asexual trans victimologist]

But do you understand my point, Yankee? Why is it that we can sit here and legislate and say "you all have to serve in the military cuz we say so, but we don't have to." Why is that fair? It isn't. If this bill passes and we are invaded, I will resign from whatever office I hold and will be the first to sign up for military service.

Because you have to have political leadership. If we had a house of lords, I would agree with your point. But with an elected congress, the people can choose and change who is in charge and if someone isn't performing their duties as Senator. They can be voted out and then be subjected to the draft. I view representatives as servants of the people and subject to their whims and desires at election time. They are static lifetime members, immune from any accountability.

So you view political positions as effectively a form of national service in themselves regardless of the state of the draft?

I don't consider them the equivalent of serving in combat, but essential governemnt positions are just as important as say the behind the lines logistical support and staffing in the military.

Clearly. National service, broadly defined.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But do you understand my point, Yankee? Why is it that we can sit here and legislate and say "you all have to serve in the military cuz we say so, but we don't have to." Why is that fair? It isn't. If this bill passes and we are invaded, I will resign from whatever office I hold and will be the first to sign up for military service.

Because you have to have political leadership. If we had a house of lords, I would agree with your point. But with an elected congress, the people can choose and change who is in charge and if someone isn't performing their duties as Senator. They can be voted out and then be subjected to the draft. I view representatives as servants of the people and subject to their whims and desires at election time. They are static lifetime members, immune from any accountability.

So you view political positions as effectively a form of national service in themselves regardless of the state of the draft?

I don't consider them the equivalent of serving in combat, but essential governemnt positions are just as important as say the behind the lines logistical support and staffing in the military.

Clearly. National service, broadly defined.

Am I suppose to disagree with that designation or something?

[Senator Napoleon]

But do you understand my point, Yankee? Why is it that we can sit here and legislate and say "you all have to serve in the military cuz we say so, but we don't have to." Why is that fair? It isn't. If this bill passes and we are invaded, I will resign from whatever office I hold and will be the first to sign up for military service.

Because you have to have political leadership. If we had a house of lords, I would agree with your point. But with an elected congress, the people can choose and change who is in charge and if someone isn't performing their duties as Senator. They can be voted out and then be subjected to the draft. I view representatives as servants of the people and subject to their whims and desires at election time. They are static lifetime members, immune from any accountability.

So you view political positions as effectively a form of national service in themselves regardless of the state of the draft?

I don't consider them the equivalent of serving in combat, but essential governemnt positions are just as important as say the behind the lines logistical support and staffing in the military.

Clearly. National service, broadly defined.

Am I suppose to disagree with that designation or something?

For conscription, yes. National servitude is more appropriate.

[Junkie]

I just want to say that I disagree with the opinion that a military draft is slavery.  While I see the parallels that are being drawn, they do not stand in my view.  Military service in time of war is, in my opinion, exactly that, service that may be owed to one's country.  In many it is like taxes, which no one really likes paying, but is something we have to do.  If our nation were to go to war, conscription could be necessary.  One objection I have to the current writing is the use of the term "land invasion," which would mean that in WWII it could not be authorized (or at least not until the invasion of the Aleutian islands).  In terms of the Civil War, an interesting question as to land invasion -- did the South count or did we have to wait until Lee's invasion of the north?

Also, just so we are clear on the facts, we do not have conscription right now.  We are a totally volunteer army.  What we do have is the Selective Service system which provides the option of a draft if needed in times of war (something that has not been needed since Nixon went to the all-volunteer army in the 1970s).  A little fun fact, I was actually in violation as I did not register until I was 20.  Total mistake.  I had joined the army at 17 and was actually serving, so it did not come up until later when applying to colleges.

Yes there are plenty of horrible countries that have conscription (cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuala).  But there are also several advanced countries that do such as Israel (although many here would not consider them an example to be followed) Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and Greece.

Even look at some of the nations that have recently done away with conscription: Germany just went to a volunteer system in 2010, although some draftees are still serving out there time, and the law allows for it to be brought back if necessary. France suspended the draft in 1997, but it is still on the books for an emergency.  The Netherlands went to an all volunteer army in the 90s, but still has the option if needed. 

Some countries such as Australia and New Zealand have abolished conscription.  Hungary did recently, but I think is actually debating bringing back the option.

I am not saying we need a peacetime draft.  I am saying that in time of war, a draft may be needed.  Making it unconstitutional ties the hands of our leaders at a time of crises.  The current wording of this amendment makes the actual use of the draft impossible (which may be the point).

We currently do not have the draft, only the option to use it if necessary.  Many other nations have the same system.  I think the current system in place is just and fair.  That is why I am against this amendment.

[For Oklahoma]

I just want to say that I disagree with the opinion that a military draft is slavery.  While I see the parallels that are being drawn, they do not stand in my view.  Military service in time of war is, in my opinion, exactly that, service that may be owed to one's country.  In many it is like taxes, which no one really likes paying, but is something we have to do. 

Comparing paying taxes and being conscripted into military service is kind of an invalid comparison. I don't necessarily believe taxes should exist, but I agree that they are a necessary evil. Conscription, however, is never justified in my opinion. It's like comparing playing Call Of Duty and actually serving in war. The two are not the same. I'll pay my taxes to the state, but I do not owe my life to the state. No way, no how.

[Governor Scott]

To put it bluntly, paying taxes never actually kills anyone.  Forced military service does.

[Junkie]

I just want to say that I disagree with the opinion that a military draft is slavery.  While I see the parallels that are being drawn, they do not stand in my view.  Military service in time of war is, in my opinion, exactly that, service that may be owed to one's country.  In many it is like taxes, which no one really likes paying, but is something we have to do. 

Comparing paying taxes and being conscripted into military service is kind of an invalid comparison. I don't necessarily believe taxes should exist, but I agree that they are a necessary evil. Conscription, however, is never justified in my opinion. It's like comparing playing Call Of Duty and actually serving in war. The two are not the same. I'll pay my taxes to the state, but I do not owe my life to the state. No way, no how.

I get your objection.  However, for a free country to exist, its citizens should pay for its government and serve it if needed in time of war.  I know you disagree with my position and that's fine.  I respect our difference of opinion and realize that we will probably not change each other's mind.  Maybe with time and further experience, we will both revisit our opinion on this issue.

I know I am definitly in the minority on this one, and I accept that.  I also want to thank you for engaging in civil disagreement without calling me a coward for holding true to my beliefs (even if you may think that, which of course you can).

I do not like a peacetime draft.  In war it may be necessary, but it should apply to all citizens and not just the less fortunate.  What makes the draft often undefensible is that it appears (although is not always the case) that the less privileged are asked to do more for their country than the more fortunate.

But that is not the debate we are having.  We are discussing whether conscription is an evil in and of itself.  I do not believe it is, but can understand why others may feel differently.  Not too long ago, I voted against the changes to the tabling motion because I believe in principled lone dissent.  On this issue, I feel very principled about my position, as I am sure you do with yours.  This discussion is what makes the game fun for me, so thank you for helping making this a little more fun.

Still against it by the way, for now at least.