Doesn't the draft violate the U.S. constitution?


In school, I learned that one of the amendments is "no forced servitude" isn't the draft forcing servitude? Sources?
Best Answer:
is it really relevant to argue when there isn't a draft contained by effect?
No, it's protecting and honoring your country. Don't worry, there won't be a draft soon, if that's why you're asking.
There is no draft , registration but the draft has not been in force for copious years. Now the Obama new volunteer service is a draft but everyone seems in favor if it .. Can you read out SOCIALISM
it is not a form of involuntary servitude because you can claim to be a conscientious objector and be exempt from the draft.
From Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress): "To raise and support Armies..." "To provide and say a Navy;" "Forced servitude" is also called "slavery". In this situation, you are owned by a master, and you are their property. In the military, whether you volunteer or are draft (which currently does not exist), you are fully compensated for your your service.
Evidently you weren't paying attention "in school", you need to reread what the amendments in truth SAY.....even regular "slavery" is 'Constitutional' punishment as a duly legislated sentence for a crime of which the Court have deemed you guilty....
1) No it doesn't. The Supreme Court has already address this issue. In Arver v US [245 US 366 {1918}] the court said: "We are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the acting out 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 contained by 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." 2) The US doesn't have a draft anyway, so the point is moot As an aside, the Supreme Court have even ruled that the government can legally require physical service from citizens - they related it to a form of taxation, paid surrounded by sweat not cash. In Butler v Perry (240 US 328 [1916]), the Supreme Court wrote, concerning an issue when able-bodied men were forced to perform road repair work after a storm... "The 13th Amendment] introduced no original doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly be 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 be liberty under the protection of effective governing body, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers." Richard
The US Supreme Court says no, but that does not mean you enjoy to agree with it. There are contradictions in the law adjectives of the time, you just have to live with it. Furthermore, words within the constitution should not be read in isolation, many of the clauses have thousands of supreme court opinion interpreting them.