Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163  (Read 8140 times)

schoomp

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - schoomp
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2004, 07:37:40 PM »
"If your friend disagrees with the pacificism of Quakers, he/she could be subject to the draft.  I don't think it is clearcut and is subject to a fair amount of interpretation by draft boards, but I'm guessing."

With this it wouldn't be a problem with regards to him - he'd go sign up the day there was one.

"Medical conditions?  who knows?  flat feet used to be enough."

I'm curious about this one.  There are so many more medical conditions now than there used to be it seems - especially people diagnosed with mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety, add, etc.  Plus, what about people with chronic illnesses that must be on meds all the time or have really bad effects?  Being in Iraq would not be easy on them.

Also, what about obese people (which there are more and more of)?  It would take longer to get them into shape to fit a war than it did in the 70s since there were less obese people then.  I know people that can't even walk down a flight of stairs without needed to take several breaks...

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2004, 08:16:40 PM »
Here's the selective service simple explanation of CO status

http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2004, 08:26:15 PM »
"Medical conditions?  who knows?  flat feet used to be enough."

I'm curious about this one.  There are so many more medical conditions now than there used to be it seems - especially people diagnosed with mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety, add, etc.  Plus, what about people with chronic illnesses that must be on meds all the time or have really bad effects?  Being in Iraq would not be easy on them.

Also, what about obese people (which there are more and more of)?  It would take longer to get them into shape to fit a war than it did in the 70s since there were less obese people then.  I know people that can't even walk down a flight of stairs without needed to take several breaks...

the selective service site doesn't seem to have info about medical conditions that would prevent you from serving, but they do talk about what medical conditions allow you to avoid registering for the draft.

1) If you are continuously confined to a hospital

2) If you are handicapped and cannot function in public or without assistance




they also have a discussion about why women do not have to register.  basically it goes like this.  the draft is intended to provide combat troops and women are not assigned to combat, etc.

schoomp

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - schoomp
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2004, 09:17:04 PM »
"the selective service site doesn't seem to have info about medical conditions that would prevent you from serving, but they do talk about what medical conditions allow you to avoid registering for the draft.

1) If you are continuously confined to a hospital

2) If you are handicapped and cannot function in public or without assistance "

That is pretty low criteria.  For instance, I have a chronic illness and without medication (lots and lots of it), I'd end up really sick and in the hospital.  Plus the medication makes it so that it is easy for me to get sick (someone coughs and I am sick for a week).  Seems this would qualify, but under there rules it wouldn't (however the fact that I am a woman works right then and there).


I wonder if there is a draft, if women will start to be drafted.  I could see drafting them for non-combat roles (especially community service stuff).  The biggest problem I see having them in combat or in a situation where they could be taken as POW's is woman have a very big disadvantage in that situation - they could get pregnant as POW's.  It is one thing when you are worried about yourself and a POW - a whole other ball game when you are either pregnant or have a child as a POW because I would think whether you wanted it or not (which assuming that it was from rape that you were pregnant as a POW), it would still be your child and you would probably do anything to protect it...

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2004, 09:20:30 PM »
I'm assuming that the medical criteria for registering is meant to be broad in order to catch everyone whose case should be considered but many would not be drafted.  but then again who says they have to make sense.


I could see women being drafted.  Women would sue to be eligible - go figure - and men would sue to include them.


marista

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
    • AOL Instant Messenger - purplenna
    • View Profile
    • My lawschoolnumbers page
    • Email
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2004, 10:39:31 AM »
Update on the Italian citizenship thing: I e-mailed the New York Italian consulate and they have confirmed that if I provide my great-great grandfather's certificate of naturalization for when he became a US citizen, along with all the other paperwork (birth certificates, marriage certificates, etc.) my sisters and my father and I are in fact eligible for dual citizenship.

M2

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2004, 10:44:14 AM »
Update on the Italian citizenship thing: I e-mailed the New York Italian consulate and they have confirmed that if I provide my great-great grandfather's certificate of naturalization for when he became a US citizen, along with all the other paperwork (birth certificates, marriage certificates, etc.) my sisters and my father and I are in fact eligible for dual citizenship.

wow... your great-great grandfather???

How would one obtain the certificate?

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2004, 10:44:41 AM »
What exactly is the requirement to qualify?

Sosua

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2004, 10:46:42 AM »
I am currently a (not active) British-American Dual citizen.  I've lived in America for all of my life except 3 months, but British citizenship never lapses.  That means I'm really American, but could apply for a British passport at any time or move there if I wanted.

So if the worst comes to the worst, I've got an out.  Or I could apply for Canadian dual citizenship from my mother's side.

M2

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2004, 11:00:06 AM »
On the italian-consulate site it only mentions grandfather...

http://www.italconsulnyc.org

And it specifically says  "If your grandfather was naturalized before your fatherís birth, your father and you are not entitled to Italian citizenship."

which is bad news for me... since my grandfather was naturalized when he was a kid.