It only applies to males, and of a specific age group at that. Sounds like bias. Hugs, Devlyn

Considering the roles women have in military service, it's pretty sexist to me. It also assumes a willingness to assume a combat role in wartime when it takes a lot more then general infantry to maintain operations.

  There was talk of women in the draft when the 26Th amendment was ratified in Aug. 1971 for US citizens of age 18 and above being eligible to vote.  Women did get more rights since then but the draft eligibility for them was untouched.  Also quite a few states did lower the drinking age to 18, but all had raised it up to 21 again since because of federal law.  Males born in 1951 were the last group to be drafted.  They suspended the draft lottery for the Vietnam war in early 1972. 
  My number was 300 out of 366 for my birthday for the birth year of 1952.  That meant there was no chance in hell that I was to be drafted because the previous year it was cutoff at 52.  The highest for the Vietnam war was in July 1970 when the number was 125, the highest number was 195 when the draft lottery was held between 1944 and 1950.   I just got out of navy bootcamp, but I didn't care, I wanted to join anyway. 
  Joelene

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on May 14, 2012, 07:51:51 PM
It only applies to males, and of a specific age group at that. Sounds like bias. Hugs, Devlyn

There was a US Supreme Court decision, Rostker v Goldenberg, that held the gender distinction enacted by Congress did not violate Constitutional principles.

When I got out of the AF, I was still young enough to be required to sign up for selective ("it's not a draft!") service...I filled out the form, but also wrote "UNDER DURESS" next to my signature.

Didn't hear back from anyone.

Re: the bias claim...since a draft (by any name) would only be used "in times of national emergency", most of our civil rights and freedoms will get tossed as needed. After the situation is resolved, we'll be hearing about 3,683,901 apologies and promises that "it'll never happen again, trust us".

Yeah, right. When a gov't is threatened, it has the power to change the rules at will, including our rights. And the "gun-toting 'Mericans!" won't do anything about it...in spite of all their bluster and camoflage utilities.

It's a silly idea really.  All volunteer, citizen armed forces are a lot more effective anyway.

Quote from: Beth Andrea on May 15, 2012, 02:47:55 AM
When I got out of the AF, I was still young enough to be required to sign up for selective ("it's not a draft!") service...I filled out the form, but also wrote "UNDER DURESS" next to my signature.

Didn't hear back from anyone.

Re: the bias claim...since a draft (by any name) would only be used "in times of national emergency", most of our civil rights and freedoms will get tossed as needed. After the situation is resolved, we'll be hearing about 3,683,901 apologies and promises that "it'll never happen again, trust us".

Yeah, right. When a gov't is threatened, it has the power to change the rules at will, including our rights. And the "gun-toting 'Mericans!" won't do anything about it...in spite of all their bluster and camoflage utilities.

From the deep dark recesses of my memory, I could swear there was/is a special classification for someone who had been in and separated from the military, but was under the age of 26.

Quote from: justmeinoz on May 15, 2012, 04:28:16 AM
It's a silly idea really.  All volunteer, citizen armed forces are a lot more effective anyway.

Karen, all of the branches of the US military are "top-heavy."  That is to say, it has a structure with lots of commissioned and non-commissioned officers, but relatively few general enlistments.

The rationale for the selective service is so that many can be called into service (the draft) if a sudden mobilization is required.

Between the active duty volunteers, and the reserves, that has not been necessary, or politically expedient, since the Vietnam Was era.

Some free countries (Israel comes to mind) still maintain mandatory service.  It is a matter of national policy.

Quote from: Jamie D on May 15, 2012, 04:40:05 AM
Karen, all of the branches of the US military are "top-heavy."  That is to say, it has a structure with lots of commissioned and non-commissioned officers, but relatively few general enlistments.

The rationale for the selective service is so that many can be called into service (the draft) if a sudden mobilization is required.

Between the active duty volunteers, and the reserves, that has not been necessary, or politically expedient, since the Vietnam Was era.

Some free countries (Israel comes to mind) still maintain mandatory service.  It is a matter of national policy.

And that is the reason why the US .mil is top-heavy...so that if a draft occurred, the framework for a greatly enlarged force is already in place.

Kinda like "instant army"....just add recruits.

Yes, it's sexist, and it's a stupid thing to keep around period.

I was drafted in February, 1971 but I enlistened. My number was145, right where my draft board made the cutoff. My brother's number was 56 but was deferred because of bad knees.