Mandatory Service
People are fond of saying that this is a free country. What they are less apt to state is that freedom is not free. There is a cost to maintaining the freedoms we so often take for granted. In furtherance of that cost I would propose a coast amendment that all able-bodied young Americans devote at least two years of their lives in support of their country. That support would be in the form of military or civil duty.
This country was founded by individuals who gave their time, money and sometimes lives to create a society where all have the same opportunity to succeed, or at the very least are not barred from succeeding. That opportunity comes with a cost. Monetary cost in the way of taxes to support this system. Also costs in the way of manpower and intellect. It is my belief that the intellectual support is as important, if not more so, then the physical. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison’s work in the federalist papers, can be argued, were as important to the American Revolution as any accomplishment on the battlefield. To that I would define able-bodied as anyone not physically or mentally handicapped that can or does hold a full or part time employment or anyone who is not able to hold a job as determined by the Social Security Administration guidelines.
I would define young as anyone between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six. Therefore the service could be before people begin college, trade school, or a career. The service can be done after school but before most begin families with the associated obligations they bring. We see the effects on so many families with the deployments to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would try to minimize the damage to families, realizing it can never be totally eliminated.
This is not a novel idea. Israel has had mandatory government service, either military or civil. Germany had mandatory government service, either military or civil, since the end of WWII until recently. They have revised their requirements several times, and recently abolished it entirely. The idea of this amendment is not new to this country. In 2003 Congressman Charles Rangel of New York (D), Congressman John Conyers of Michigan (D), and Senator Ernest Hollings of South Carolina (d) proposed the United Services Act. The act required 2 years’ service between the age of eighteen and twenty six. The service would include military, Peace Corps, Teach for America or AmeriCorps.
Under this proposal the president would determine the number of people required to serve and the means of selection. There would be no exemption for college and grad school, unlike Vietnam. While not truly unusual in that there is a specific number and selection system the basic concepts are the same. There would be an ability to receive college tuition, job training or capital for business startup. In 2010 Representative Rangel again proposed another act, the Universal National Service Act. This act required two years National Service, either as a member of the uniformed service or civilian service in furtherance of national defense and homeland security. It also authorized induction in uniformed service during wartime and for other purposes. This act was more in line with a traditional military draft and authorized at a time when President Obama was calling for a civilian national security force. Representative Rangel strayed from the joint military and civil purpose of the 2003 United Service Act.
Along a similar theme in 1935 President Roosevelt formed the Works Progress Administration, which employed millions of unskilled workers and carry out public works projects. There is probably not a community that was in existence at the time that did not have a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency. It had a youth wing, the National Youth Administration. It was a national program that operated its own projects in cooperation with state and local governments. It also helped millions of unemployed regain their self-esteem at a very bad point in our country’s history.
While a program like this would likely face significant organized union opposition today, as it would be seen as a thruway to political contracts, military and civic service would not face the same obstacles. Yet both would assist the country in different ways.
Those supporting mandatory public service requirements argue that it helps citizens to understand and respect the responsibilities of belonging to a society as well as enjoying its benefits. It allows young people a chance to grow and mature before beginning their academic and work pursuits. Those that are opposed to military service still have the option to serve their country in a non-military role.
Those that are opposed tend to argue that mandatory public service runs contrary to the idea of personal liberty, though our liberties are often abridged in the name of the public good (penal codes, zoning regulations, regulations on drinking and smoking). Moreover, they would argue mandated individuals are less committed then volunteers. Of course most of this country’s wars were fought with the same percentage of conscripts with positive results.
I think that the powers granted in the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 to call for a militia, raise an army and navy would give them the power to enact such an Act. We have had drafts in times of war and peace. The difference now would be that it would not be limited to males and it would provide an avenue of non-military service.
While there were many good suppositions, most notably the balanced budget, in the end. I think mandatory public service best advances the needs of our country. While a balanced budget is paramount, I do not believe congress, republican or democrats will ever be disciplined enough again. At least they have not been in my memory.
Mandatory public service will benefit the military, important civil groups, while building our youths understanding of our duties and responsibilities in a democratic society. We are at a point where we are accepting of a fifty percent turnout of registered voters in elections. Not even consistency, those that are able to vote but are not registered. If something is not done to put future generations to appreciate their duties and obligations as citizens this will be a country run by and for small, motivated special interest groups. It would be argued political primaries are already run this way. That may be the greatest given and threat to our liberties facing us today.
References
Cornell University- http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
Library of Congress - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.163:
Oklahoma Historical Society - http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/N/NA014.html
Open Congress - http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111h5741/show