From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!karn
Newsgroups: net.followup
Title: The Draft & Involuntary Servitude, again
Article-I.D.: eagle.601
Posted: Thu Nov  4 23:23:41 1982
Received: Sat Nov  6 07:10:08 1982

It is precisely this kind of language "interpretation" that makes
personal freedoms supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution so
vulnerable.

Referring again to my dictionary, a few excerpts:

involuntary - "Not voluntary; done or occurring without choice or against
one's will..." Under "slavery", the discussion comparing the terms "slavery",
"bondage", and "servitude" has this to say about the latter:
"Servitude is compulsory service..."  I fail to see why universally
accepted word definitions should fail to apply to legal situations.

My aim is not to necessarily to argue whether our government should
have the right to force people into involuntary service, military or
otherwise, although I think you can guess my views on this point.
Rather, I wish to point out the hypocrisy in a government that
interprets the 13th amendment in a manner most convenient to itself and
in a manner completely different from common usage.  I still feel that
the analogy to "practicality" in the case of slavery is apt.

If the citizens feel that a draft is needed, then they should change the
13th amendment to specifically allow it; otherwise, the government should
obey the letter of the law.  To not do this is to grant the judicial
branch law-making powers reserved for the legislative branch.

I suggest we move this discussion to poli-sci before it goes too far...

Phil Karn