UPDATE: Further Evidence that the Draft is VERY BROKEN
In 2006 Molten Eagle brought you this Why Our Politicians Cower from the Draft: It is VERY BROKEN
So strongly do we feel about this problem that we went to extra lengths (print and radio) to get the word out to the sleeping public. Most people told us we were wrong, although experienced corporate folk in Human Resources tended to agree with us. Now, 3 years later, something very interesting has just happened. We finally have solid evidence of the danger foreseen. The story was buried and the explanation was even more obscure:
U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock ruled Monday that a separate law that bans employment at federal executive agencies for men who fail to register is an unconstitutional bill of attainder, an obscure Constitutional provision that prohibits the legislative branch from punishing people without a judicial trial.
Associated PressTuesday, January 27, 2009 - Draft requirement for fed jobs challenged
BOSTON — Henry Tucker had worked for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for 17 years when he was told he was going to lose his job — because he hadn’t registered for the military draft when he was 18.
The Military Selective Service Act requires men between 18 and 26 to register. Another law bans employment at executive agencies for men who fail to register. U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock made the ruling Monday in a lawsuit filed by four men fired from their jobs or who lost job offers with federal agencies because they failed to register. They seek reinstatement to their jobs and back pay. Woodlock found that law violates a Constitutional provision that prohibits the legislative branch from punishing people without a trial.
A U.S. Department of Justice spokesman had no comment.
No wonder USDoJ had no comment. The real reason? Women are not required to register for the draft. How then, can a man be denied employment in a job for a qualification not required of women? ANSWER: He cannot; that is today considered automatically Unconstitutional and violates EEOC laws.
Well then, why did the judge make his decision based upon bill of attainder, when all he had to say was Tucker's job loss was Unconstitutional because it did not apply equally? Hopefully, M.E. readers can answer that for themselves.
We would have big problems in store for the military if anyone tries to implement the draft until the underlying gender issue is resolved equitably.
PREDICTION: Judge Woodlock's ruling WILL NOT BE APPEALED, much less overturned. Touching this issue is too hot and non-PC anywhere in the country, today.