Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge: Law Banning Jobs For Men Who Don't Register For Draft Is Unconstitutional

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 12:39 PM
Original message
Judge: Law Banning Jobs For Men Who Don't Register For Draft Is Unconstitutional
January 27, 2009 - 9:55 AM

BOSTON - A judge in Boston has found that a law that bans most federal employment for men who fail to register for the military draft is unconstitutional.

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.

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.

Woodlock found that law violates a Constitutional provision that prohibits the legislative branch from punishing people without a trial.

AP: http://tinyurl.com/d93vww
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. We should either have draft registration for BOTH genders or none at all
And until women are subject to the draft, then women should not be allowed to be on draft boards.

Maybe we need to get rid of draft registration all together. It's not like it's hard for the government to come and find you anyway if they need your body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Unfortunately, it doesn't look "equal protection" is the basis of the ruling
but rather procedural due process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Earth_First Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. I see this one heading on up the line... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yup. How about "proof of citizenship"? Same deal.
I don't see this ruling surviving an appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC