Drafting women

| January 30, 2013 | 16 Comments

The other day, when Marty Dempsey and Leon Panetta announced that they were going to open combat jobs, Dempsey, they were asked by the press if their decision would lead to women being registered for the Selective Service System. Dempsey answered that he didn’t even know who the guy is that runs the SSS. Well, Marty, that guy’s name is Lawrence G. Romo. I’ve heard speculation here about whether women will be drafted or not. Well, the short answer is; no, they won’t until the Selective Service law is changed by Congress.

[In 1998,] GAO examined the issue from Selective Service cost and staffing points of view, recognizing that registration of women would require legislative action and operational and budgetary changes. “Selective Service System could register women if its authorizing legislation, the Military Selective Service Act, is amended to allow registering women,” the report stated.

The Washington Post wrote about the subject the other day;

[When Jimmy Carter reestablished draft registration in 1980 in reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,] A group of men sued the director of the Selective Service at the time , Bernard D. Rostker, arguing that the exclusion of women made the registration requirement unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s due-process clause. In a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that it was acceptable to exclude women. Writing for the majority, Justice William H. Rehnquist determined that “the fact that Congress and the Executive have decided that women should not serve in combat fully justifies Congress in not authorizing their registration.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Thurgood Marshall chided the ruling, saying it “places its imprimatur on one of the most potent remaining public expressions of ‘ancient canards about the proper role of women.’?”

So, since women not serving in combat was the Supreme Court’s reason for ruling for their exclusion from the draft. Someone else should sue them now that the exclusion has been lifted and see if we can’t get them drafted, too. Fair is fair, right?

Category: Military issues

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ex-PH2 says:

    Yes. Fair is definitely fair.

  2. OWB says:

    The ridiculousness continues.

    Personally, I see no need for a draft at all until there is a need for cannon fodder, which is certainly something I expect to never see again. But, assuming that there is a need for cannon fodder, I have no objection to all citizens being subject to a draft.

    Most jobs currently in the military are fairly technical these days. The training for them can be quite extensive. How long should a draftee be required to submit to involuntary service? Anything more than 2 years sound absurd to me.

  3. 68W58 says:

    I don’t think you can grok the feminist concept of “fairness” until you see what regularly happens to men in family court. I think for most of those who pushed this nonsense “fairness” means that women get to explore their options and take advantage of “increased opportunities” like the special little snowflakes that the agenda feminists think they are while men get to continue to be treated like chattel.

  4. kp32 says:

    It’s ironic the Jimmy Carter reinstituted the draft after pardoning the draft dodgers from the Vietnam era on his first day in office.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7974.html

  5. Chip@NASA says:

    Damn SKIPPY!

  6. Hondo says:

    To be fair, Jimmy the Clueless did not re-institute an actual draft. What Jimmy the Clueless did was to re-institute the requirement for Selective Service registration. I’m pretty sure no one has actually been drafted since Dec 1972 (some of these folks didn’t actually report for induction until mid-1973).

  7. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    I remember going to the main post office to register! Being an old guy and old Corps, I stand by my opinion that women don’t belong in combat roles UNTIL I see exactly what jobs are open to them and see that the standards remain exactly as they are now. I’ve mentioned before, in my short, inglorious career I met TWO, DOS, (2) women who could have hacked, the rest? Mmmm, not so much.

  8. Eagle Keeper says:

    Shouldn’t draft women.

    Or men, for that matter.

    Conscription has no place in a genuinely free nation, because depends upon the false assumption that we belong to Caesar.

    And if we accept that assumption, then it is for Caesar — not for parents, communities or religious institutions — to decide who shall have what values, and who shall do what work, and when, where and how they should do it.

  9. kp32 says:

    You are correct Hondo. But I a remember thinking when JC pardoned all the draft dodgers, “What’s going to happen if they ever need to draft people again.”

    There is still irony in that it was Carter himself that set up the ability to draft again.

  10. Hondo says:

    kp32: agreed. There is indeed much irony in Jimmy “pardon the draft dodgers” Carter being the one to re-instate the requirement to register for the draft so that the SSA could function if necessary. I just wanted to point out for those unfamiliar with the actual history that we have not had any actual involuntary military conscription in the US during the last 40+ years.

    Interestingly, Carter was not the first US president to offer such to Vietnam-era draft dodgers. Ford did as well, in the form of a limited amnesty requiring application and the performance of 2 years of alternate service. Carter’s amnesty was blanket and unconditional.

    I could live with Ford’s amnesty, though I didn’t much like the idea – it still rewarded those who refused to serve when the nation required. (I’d have been OK if the requirement was 3 years of alternate service vice the normal draftee’s 2-year stint in the military – that’s a way back to respectability but also imposes some additional costs.) Like most of Jimmy the Clueless’ other actions while POTUS, however, his was an abomination.

  11. Bill R. says:

    I believe we have a real conundrum here. Yes, you should be careful what you ask for. But at the same time, an overwhelming majority of readers and commenters at this blog and many others know that women in combat arms just won’t work, with few exceptions. Yes, fair is fair but as a current male chauvinist pig, I have grave reservations about going full bore into an experiment that can only end in failure.

  12. Twist says:

    I wonder how long it will be before Joe comes here to lecture us knuckle dragging Neanderthals about this.

  13. FatCircles0311 says:

    Why even bother. The “I’m pregnant” card will be used en mass if it ever comes into effect and then they can simply go down to government funded planned parent hood the same day and get an abortion referral.

    It would be impossible to actually enforce a female draft with how retardo our society is.

  14. malclave says:

    Maybe women registering for the draft should be voluntary, instead of required.

    That way, they would only really need to register for the draft if they wanted to apply for college financial aid and stuff… purely optional.

  15. Jacobite says:

    Joe ain’t gonna come in here talkin smack about this issue. I guarantee the retard is a closet misogynist.

    On the rest of it I gotta say, the SSS is just one more needless government program that needs to go away. I would NOT support adding women to the program for that reason, and that reason alone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *