Le bump. It seems like a straight forward question. If Person A is required to commit their life to the State in order to vote, should Person B be required to do the same?
No, Registration for the draft has no bearing on the right to vote, in fact the draft registration should be illegal IMO
I'm not really a big fan of democracy. That said, arbitrary restrictions based upon things like draft dodging or felonies is ripe for abuse of power such as waging war on Vietnam with the blood of the young.
I guess that's a cute way around the 19th amendment. Voting cannot be restricted on the basis of sex (19th) Women can't register for the draft (not restricted ) Only people who register for the draft can vote (not restricted) Therefore women cannot vote
That seems to have a simple fix: Require women to register for selective service just like men are required to. Interesting this blatant sexism isn't addressed by feminists...
Except it has been the fight by women over the last few decades to be able to serve in military outfits.
Two options. 1. Get rid of the law that requires men to register 2. Change the law to include women Anything other than that is blatant discrimination based on gender, which is amply displayed in Rostker vs Goldberg, this to me is SCOTUS using the law to defend the law ie circular reasoning. What they should have done IMO was to strike down the law that stops women being part of combat troops and thus rendering the men only registration a moot point.
Well right now it's for men only. My preference would be to open it up to women and make it voluntary. Once you make it voluntary, it negates any possible legal challenge to a future draft. However there is still an incentive to volunteer for selective service since student loans are contingent (for men currently) on registration.
Yes I understand that and this fact is what anti-feminists use as a wedge issue in their never ending fight to quash equality. Then it would not be voluntary, when coercion is involved by definition it is not voluntary and making registration a requirement in order to attain a student loan is coercion. do away with it all together IMO.
I don't get how you think that making selective service voluntary is coercive. If you are male, you already have to be registered with the selective service to be eligible for student loans. You also can't have any drug convictions. But there is nothing coercive about that. Student Loans and Pell Grants are not rights; they're benefits that you have to meet eligibility requirements for.
Anything that has the ability or purpose to influence a decision to create a wanted result is coercive ie if a person wants a student loan they must be registered, if they are not registered they cannot qualify for a student loan .. this does not allow for the person who has no wish to be registered but who still wants a student loan ergo they must register in order to get that loan .. that is coercive.
We do more than that for K-12. We make that a requirement! Education is just as important as is our armed forces. The fact that we are a nation means that there are certain things our population must do - not because it looked like fun, but because we are a nation.
I would say we are paying people to go to college - but, not enough to defray the full cost of going to college. We also pay people to serve in the military, to build roads, to do air traffic control, and all sorts of other stuff that we as a nation need people to do. We are better off as a nation when people do this stuff - especially when it directly affects our nation's competitiveness.
Yes there is. Coerce - Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats - The threat being the loss of the loan.
That does not change the reality that forcing someone to sign up for something in order to receive something else is coercive, the outcome or good intentions of it does not change what it is.
As a matter of law, your definition of coercion is absolute nonsednse, obviously. Coercion requires intimidation or undue influence. Without that, it isn't coercion. Offering monetary compensation for doing something can not in itself qualify as coercion. You may try to form arguments against the government offering benefits or compensation for particular acts, . But, calling it coercion gets you no more than a correction in your definition.
Coercion: the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. These are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Requiring a person to register prior to receiving a grant is a form of pressure that may make them behave in an involuntary way ie they involuntary sign the register to get the grant .. the question is would they sign the register voluntary if they could get the grant without doing so? If the answer is yes then there is no need for the registration to be mandated If the answer is no then they are being pressured into an involuntary act by the state act to achieve a desired outcome for the state An involuntary act is something a person would not normally do without pressure. Whether this is beneficial to both parties does not change that the mandated requirement to register is Coercion.
You aren't interpreting your citation correctly. The law does not consider the offer of compensation evidence of coercion. For example, the fact that an employer pays you is not evidence of coercion. Our military offers specific compensation for enlisting that you are free to reject - not coercion. States, federal government, private enterprise, and others offer support for going to college. You may accept or reject those offers - not coercion. Coercion is a negative. Compensation is not.
