Anti-Conscription Amendment [Rejected]

[Napoleon]

Introduced this with a shred of hope that this Senate doesn't embarrass itself by the time it reaches the people.

[Napoleon]

The anti-life amendment is unfriendly, of course.

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Napoleon]

Aye

So, let me get this straight, if the nation was being invaded, you would still oppose using to conscription to defend it? If that were to actually happen somehow, it doesn't look like our government would last too long...

If no one wants to defend the nation, then we deserve to get beat.

[Napoleon]

The comment was regarding what I consider to be one of the most embarrassing and flat out stupid time-wasting votes as a Senate that would have easily passed a normal anti-conscription amendment compromised with itself for no reason at all and forwarded a hideous mess for a popular vote that went down in flames. That was part of a string of poorly worded failed amendments where I managed to position myself as the lone voice of reason!

[Napoleon]

The world is only as dangerous as our desire to pursue an irrational right wing foreign policy allows it to be. I've been a leading voice for foreign policy reform to make this world safer and I do not believe in using fear as a political tool.

[Napoleon]

The wording is better on this amendment but I still consider it unfriendly. Where is Jake's amendment?

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Napoleon]

The Senate is 50% coward. I should have known...

[Napoleon]

The Senate is 50% coward. I should have known...

Please explain.

You're the quintessential Moderate Hero.

[Napoleon]

There are two reasons one could support the amendment to this proposed constitutional change. The first is that they are scared to stand up and do what is right out of fear of voters or one's peers. The second is a perverse sense of entitlement to force other Atlasians' children off to fight their wars for them. Both are extremely cowardly and it isn't really surprising the same people that think perpetual war is appropriate want to be able to keep their options open for later. Yuck.

There would not be any point in adding this garbage to the constitution. Some of these Senators even claim to be pro-life, can you believe it?

Those who failed to stand up to slave owners, those who wanted to "compromise", they were cowards. Those today voting in favor of allowing government to continue a specific form of slavery: not much different. Too cowardly to even put their beliefs on the line in a vote by the Atlasian people; perhaps they know public opinion is not on their side. It's not like the Senate hasn't made this deeply foolish mistake before now.

I know the Senate doesn't usually care to find out their constituents views on amendments before it approves them, but maybe in this case it'd be worthwhile.

I do.

[Napoleon]

Senator, no doubt I respect your view. In fact, I agree with it!

I don't believe a constitution is the place for such things - I believe that there are three purposes for a constitution - 1. to determine how the government is run, 2. to enumerate the rights, powers and responsibilities of the federal and regional governments and individuals

This is exactly what this constitutional amendment will do. We are enumerating the rights of people not to be forced into labor, which is what conscription is: forced labor. Unfortunately, without this Constitutional amendment, we can not be sure that these rights aren't trampled on by future Senates.

I believe a legislative instrument is appropriate, a Constitutional amendment is a melodramatic step, one that I see as unnecessary in practice.

A Constitutional amendment is the only way to guarantee the right that a citizen not be conscripted and forced into military servitude. A legislative proposal can be removed just as easily as it was put in to place: if this Senate believes that conscription is okay, that is this Senate's own moral failing, but I  know a Constitutional amendment protecting the right for citizens to help defend this nation in a way one decides for his or herself is the only way to make certain that it will be protected later on, by future Senates who may not be so wise. We should do this here, and now, and let history judge us for it. I promise you won't be disappointed.

[Napoleon]

Uh, who are you talking to? The voices in your head? I haven't made any conspiracy suggestions at all.


Wars must not be fought using slave labor. Exactly what is worth fighting for if our constitution cannot even guarantee us the most basic of human rights? What is so important that we cannot allow volunteers to do, and we instead have to force those unwilling to do it out to be killed or injured?

[Napoleon]

Are they any statistics suggesting that in a time of war, not enough Atlasians would be willing to fight in said war? Honest question.

The problem is that when we talk about a constitutional amendment, it needs to consider not only all possibilities that could conceivably occur now but at any point in the future. A constitution needs to be well enough written that it can be applied beyond the scope of the vision of those doing the writing.

Which is the best argument in favor of this amendment...

[Napoleon]

I have said nothing conspiratorial, and your suggestion that I have is highly insulting and disrespectful.

Are they any statistics suggesting that in a time of war, not enough Atlasians would be willing to fight in said war? Honest question.

The problem is that when we talk about a constitutional amendment, it needs to consider not only all possibilities that could conceivably occur now but at any point in the future. A constitution needs to be well enough written that it can be applied beyond the scope of the vision of those doing the writing.

Which is the best argument in favor of this amendment...

Only if your primarily objective is restricting the power of the gov't to wage a conflict in all circumstances, for all of time.

My primary objective is protecting the rights, and lives, of this nation's citizens. I could be far less concerned with the government's ability to utilize slave labor to exert force. I will leave that sort of freedom for governments like Hitler's, as you mention. I'm not in a hurry to stoop to Hitler's level.

[Napoleon]

If you are going to make outrageous accusations about me, don't complain when I question your sources.

Your argument relies wholly on assumptions and hypothetical. It holds no weight and deserves less consideration. I cannot take seriously a point of view that suggests slave labor can be permitted "for the greater good".

I encourage someone with a spine to assume sponsorship.

[Napoleon]

Slavery is slavery. In that sense, you're right. How could one disagree that slavery is, in fact, slavery?

It's also discrimination. Apparently, some lives are more valuable than others, at least when it comes to forced servitude on behalf of the very government that is supposed to protect their rights.

I don't support discrimination and I don't support slavery. You can be 100% confident that I do not support conscription. By the way, my friend, I did not call you crazy. That is an erroneous accusation. But I did, and still do, question your judgment, along with anyone else who thinks that slavery, however archaic the form, is, you know, "acceptable".

[Napoleon]

Those were volunteers.

[Napoleon]

Does Atlasia draft women? Can education not be continued after a war? Your amendment seems to allow higher education as an evasion tactic.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

"Had Marokai done his job..."

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

[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.

[Napoleon]

This Amendment is failing.

Which is a shame, because it's better than the status-quo. But it seems some people want perfection..

Ehhh. Last time the Senate tried this madness, the people laughed it down in flames. That is the tricky part of our amendment process: it doesn't work when the Senate is so out of touch.