The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
House Votes to Apply Mandatory Draft Registration to Women
A better way to end sex discrimination would be to simply abolish it for everyone.
It attracted relatively little attention, because of all the other political issues in the news. But, a few days ago, the House of Representatives voted to expand mandatory "Selective Service" draft registration to include women. The system currently applies only to men aged 18-25. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed the House last week would apply the system to women of the same age. Since the Senate version of the NDAA includes a similar provision, it is highly likely that women will soon be subject to mandatory draft registration, on par with men.
The move is likely, at least in part, a reaction to recent indications that the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the present system on the ground that it engages in unconstitutional sex discrimination. In June, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging the male-only system. But three justices, including conservative Brett Kavanaugh, filed an opinion arguing that the system is unconstitutional, and suggesting that the Court should invalidate it in the near future, if Congress does not act.
If Congress expands the system to include women, it would indeed put an end to the problem of unconstitutional sex discrimination in draft registration. But it would do so at the cost of subjecting both men and women to potential forced labor. In testimony before the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (whose report was cited by the justices) and elsewhere, I explained why such a policy is deeply unjust, and the better way to end sex discrimination is simply to abolish draft registration for everyone. By that means, we can simultaneously promote liberty and gender equality, instead of sacrificing one to the other.
It so happens I have both a son and a daughter. Both should be free of sex discrimination. But I also don't want either of them to be subjected to forced labor by the state.
For the foreseeable future, the expansion of the draft registration system might make little difference. There is no military draft, and no politically significant movement to reinstate it. But when and if such a movement reemerges (as it has several times in earlier American history), the existence of the draft registration system would make it easier to implement its agenda.
In addition, the same registration system that is currently meant only to serve as the basis for a potential military draft, could easily be repurposed to impose a system of civilian forced labor, as urged by some advocates of mandatory "national service," such as 2020 Democratic presidential contender John Delaney. Right now, this idea probably has even less support than reimposition of the military draft. But, it too, could potentially gain popularity, as has happened in France, which recently introduced mandatory national service, scheduled to begin in 2026. The National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, whose recommendations on draft registration influenced both Congress and the Supreme Court justices, included people sympathetic to the idea, though its final report stopped short of it.
As I explained more fully in my testimony to the Commission, a nationwide system of forced labor isn't just another debatable policy option, or one of many potential infringements of liberty. It would be a massive assault on the basic principles of a free society. Instead of expanding a draft registration system that might facilitate such a grave injustice, Congress should abolish it root and branch, for men and women alike. We should strive for equal liberty regardless of sex, not equal potential subjection to forced labor.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sigh...
Actually calling up the draft is rather unlikely. To be honest, in some respects having women subject to the draft makes it even more unlikely. The current military really doesn't want to have drafted soldiers.
But if they call a draft, odds are, we're going to need it. And in such a case, you want the system in place for it.
A lot has changed since the draft was ended, the government has dozens of ways to compile a list of eligible draftees without selective service registration.
Sure, it's getting less likely that we'll draft millions to go fight massive WWI style ground battles. As Prof. Somin suggests, the real danger a draft to fight some metaphorical "war".
Example: a war on poor infrastructure, a war on excessive individualism, a war on inequality, etc. In other countries they might call it national service but I could imagine the US using existing military draft and then sending the "military" out, uniformed and subject to military discipline but unarmed, to go build roads or fix the peoples' attitude or whatever.
If a war isn't popular enough to get enough volunteer cannon fodder, it isn't noble enough to turn to slave labor.
Is that true for all countries/times/wars, in your view?
E.g. the pictures of women digging anti-tank ditches outside Moscow as the Germans approached. Was the German invasion a drastic enough situation to permit conscription, or would you still say volunteers only, and just go with Nazi occupation if there aren't enough?
A second concern would be that in, say, Europe where there were constant wars, wouldn't you be adversely selecting against altruism?
One thug nation against another? Neither had moral status to do anything, much less throw waves of commoners at each other to maintain various Dear Leaders in power.
The US may need a draft in spite of its overwhelming military, given its current struggles to have one major front and a "holding pattern" secondary front, both needing millions of troops rotating in and out. They discussed this during Iraq and Afghanistan early if something major should break out someplace else.
Then there's the woeful inadequacy of being able to placate a medium sized nation for a full generation so it can grow up witb continued freedom as an assumption, rather than cronic troop shortages allowing terrorist massacres of entire non-US local troop garrisons or police departments.
Nothing says, er, said get ready for the US leaving than two incidents of that.
So by your definition, every nation that's had compulsory military Service has been an immoral 'thug country?'
Because that's cutting quite a broad swath throughout history. Like, we don't even do that with slavery till the 18th century or so!
"One thug nation against another? Neither had moral status to do anything"
FWIW, I was trying to look at it through the eyes of Joe Blow Muscovite (Ivan Ivanovitch??). Even Stalin's Russia had normal citizens. For them, Germany winning the war was ... not going to be good. Not, mind you, that Russia winning was great either, but likely a heckuva lot better than Germany winning. From that viewpoint, can I expect my neighbors to help dig anti-tank ditches?
The end of WWII changed that, by giving us the nuclear option & forever putting to bed the idea of the US not having a standing army...
You have to understand how the US got a draft, to understand why we no longer need one:
Prior to WWII, the US only maintained a standing Navy, a very small Marine Corps, and whatever minimal sized land-army was needed for the internal-security issues of the day (Eg, Indian Wars). Conscription was used to shit-out a fighting force *after* a new war was declared, and that fighting force was demobilized immediately after the war ended.
After WWII, the Cold War and our position as successor-state to the British Empire meant we were never going to demobilize again. We kept the draft because it was institutionalized, until Vietnam forced us to abolish it - then spent *decades* trying to purge draft-based traditions, methods-of-discipline (no, you can't punch a troop as punishment - do paperwork and kick 'em out) & attitudes from the force...
The 'Draft = Bad troops, bad morale, shitty life' viewpoint is now engrained such that nuclear war is more appealing than trying to turn a bunch of potheads fresh out of HS into a fighting force...
Pretty much.
If the US is drafting people, it is to fight with 'somebody' over radioactive rubble. Use of nuclear weapons is less 'unthinkable' than letting draftees back into the force...
In such a situation, it's debatable how valuable the Selective Service would be....
Discrimination based on fundamental and relevant and empirically demonstrated biological differences has been accepted in the context of the Constitution ever since the beginning. What exactly changed in the last few years? If we're going for the no Discrimination no matter what approach what are we still doing with all these age based restrictions? Why cant kids smoke or drive cars and otherwise have all the privileges and responsibilities everyone else does? Pretty sure some can do it better than some adults. Seems massively hypocritical in this big Equality bender weve been on.
At least they went about it the correct way, by Congress using its power to raise armies, rather than the judicial branch deciding it knew how to raise armies.
Since the draft was implemented to (i) preserve the Union and free the slaves and (ii) defeat fascism and Japanese colonialism, it would seem that it has been on the whole liberty-enhancing. Having the United States subjugated by the Chinese would not be increase anyone's personal freedom.
I'd like to see you try to come up with any plausible scenario where the Chinese, or any other government, actually can subjugate the United States.
Plausible, mind you.
I can think of some (eg, a cyberattack followed by immediate occupation of the now-helpless country). I wonder what good a draft would do in that situation, though.
That's some cyber attack, complete loss of air and sea and armies across the land and 2.5 guns per person.
80s disasterbation movies fancied the Rooskies with a giant EMP bomb doing the same magical thing.
A cyberattack on the US could cause economic problems, but it would be a stretch to actually disable any military hardware to the point where an invasion would be possible...
At least on the Army side, with all this 1980s 'built to fight a nuclear war with Russia, still communicates via voice over FM 2-way-radios' hardware that makes up all our key systems...
Leaving aside the absurdity of that event...
You strongly underestimate how repulsive a draft is to the modern US military.
Keys would turn & ICBMs would fly before we accept draftees back into our formations...
Equity! A couple hundred years of an all-female military should suffice.
The blatant sexual discrimination of the draft has always bothered me, from the time that my age cohort was being drafted and sent to die in the rice paddies of Vietnam. I was looking coy, and ultimately wasn’t called up, but the threat hung over me throughout my undergraduate years. This fear was something that the co-eds never had to fear.
well like so many equality laws this is all virtue signaling since robots and specialized groups are pretty much going to be handling the fighting from now on
When I got back from 'Nam I could vote. I couldn't vote when I got drafted, but since so many young guys were being sent over, maybe to die, it was felt that they should at least be able to vote. No women were being drafted, but they got the vote too, which made no sense to me at all. I was lectured about what a moral coward I was for not running to Canada, which the young women would certainly have done, if only...
Now they are going to be subject to at least draft registration.
If the draft is cancelled, shouldn't the voting age be raised to 21? I mean, if 18-year olds can't be trusted with alcohol, tobacco, or vaping, why should they be trusted with deciding how others should live? It will not be like they are being subjected to special risk.
If we follow historical precedent (and ignore the total incompatibility of the draft with the ethos of the modern military) it would be 22 (post-college age).
The rationale for 18 in the past was that 18 is the age where - in the 40s to 60s - you had completed your economically-essential education (finished HS). Times have changed, that's no longer 'enough' school for the civilian world.
"In June, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging the male-only system. But three justices, including conservative [SIC] Brett Kavanaugh, filed an opinion arguing that the system is unconstitutional, and suggesting that the Court should invalidate it in the near future, if Congress does not act."
If a conservative can't defend the patriarchy, he may as well join NOW.
If Kavanaugh votes for a female draft, he will basically be doing in reality what he was falsely accused of doing - molesting women against their will.
You're posting on a libertarian site, arguing in favor of 'patriarchy'? Really?
Conservatives are supposed to defend natural-rights - life, liberty, property...
Not a byegone system of civilian economic organization based on the notion that women would stay home to raise kids & men would risk life-and-limb doing manual-labor for income....
You can argue that the old way made sense years ago in terms of men being expendable population & women being needed to stay alive and raise the next generation after dad got crushed in a mine accident, kicked in the head by a horse, had a tree dropped on him while logging, or got maimed in a 1700s/1800s factory.
But it doesn't make sense in the face of what people in our modern economy actually do (or in the face of the availability of paid institutional childcare & a standard of living that gives most citizens the means to afford it).....
If your premises lead to drafting women, your premises are flawed.
But it doesn't matter in the end, because if people can choose their own sex, then a male-only draft would have enforcement problems ("I'm not Lawrence, I'm Loretta!").
Is it not considered desirable to promote affirmative action to correct for serious past societal mistakes. Therefore, should women not bear more of the military burden? Where was the "free labor" argument when for centuries males were drafted and sent into harms way; When their loss was nothing more than the "cost of war". The "we want equality" slogan seems to evaporate when faced with the total reality of its meaning.
Taking bets until how long the new emphasis on sex discrimination means that having only women make abortion decisions becomes…sex descrimination.
And if government can’t discriminate against men who only date men, can it “discriminate” against men who only employ men? What about pregnancy discrimination? Can it “discriminate” based on sex-based biological characteristics of any kind?
Depending on how far the doctrine is taken, the new sex discrimination doctrine could thoroughly undo the old. If everything done for women’s special benefit is unconstitutional, women could lose big time.
XIII;
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
So, how is the draft allowable under the constitution of the United States? The only argument I can think of is "Because that's the way we've always done it."
Agree with Prof Somin - end it for both genders. But didn't we already do that?
I think the most straightforward explanation is that military service would not be considered a form of "involuntary servitude," and it wouldn't make sense from a construction standpoint for it to be grouped with slavery, which is unpaid labor with no rights, or as a punishment for a crime.
Plus, the arguments based on the amendment's legislative history would overwhelmingly weigh against interpreting the term to include the draft, if you wanted to look beyond the text.
Claiming that the draft would not be considered a form of “involuntary servitude” twists the plain meaning of those words into a pretzel.
Granted, the writers of the amendment probably didn't have conscription in mind when they wrote it, but anyone who claims to be a textualist would have to conclude that the draft is involuntary service, in sharp contrast to the all volunteer military we currently have.
It's about time