~ archived since 2018 ~

NBC offended that MRA's are the ones making progress on anti-male US draft

DignifiedAlpaca

February 28, 2019

57 upvotes

The National Coalition for Men has made significant progress in its efforts to correct gender-based discrimination in the implementation of the U.S. military draft. Some news outlets, however, seem to be nervous that the men's rights movement has been seeing a lot more publicity lately.

This particular article refers to the movement as the "men's rights" movement in quotes, as if "men's rights" is not really a thing, despite the fact that the article itself is about a situation in which men's rights are clearly being violated. The article then goes on to vaguely claim that the National Coalition for Men has been "likened to a male supremacist group" by citing the highly partisan Southern Poverty Law Center as its source.

As the men's rights movement continues to gain prominence and success, it is going to become increasingly difficult for biased news outlets to successfully fool astute readers with such obvious slander.

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	NBC offended that MRA's are the ones making progress on anti-male US draft
Author	DignifiedAlpaca
Upvotes	57
Comments	10
Date	February 28, 2019 4:55 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/avn2rp/nbc_offended_that_mras_are_the_ones_making/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/nbc-offended-that-mras-are-the-ones-making.882841 https://theredarchive.com/post/882841

Comments

[–]Historybuffman 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Actually, this happened in 1981 too.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/22/us/women-join-battle-on-all-male-draft.html
The case against the all-male military draft was brought by men on the ground that being singled out for compulsory service violated their rights to equal protection. But a number of women's groups have filed briefs with the Supreme Court arguing that the all-male draft also violates the constitutional rights of women.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in the Federal Government's appeal from a lower court decision that struck down the renewal of draft registration last July. A special three-judge Federal District Court in Philadelphia, ruling that the all-male registration program unconstitutionally discriminated against men, said that Congress must either include women or forgo the option of a draft entirely.

So I think it's way fewer years than 45.

[–]Historybuffman 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Historybuffman 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The draft was not ruled unconstitutional in 1981.

Yes, it was, and that ruling was appealed to the SC.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/24/military-draft-judge-rules-male-only-registration-unconstitutional/2968872002/
The decision deals the biggest legal blow to the Selective Service System since the Supreme Court upheld the draft registration process in 1981. In Rostker v. Goldberg, the court ruled that a male-only draft was "fully justified" because women were ineligible for combat roles.

But the SC ruled that it was constitutional. Which is why we are where we are today.

However, no injunction was filed, which means if a draft is called today, ONLY males can be conscripted in the US.

And today we have an empty victory. And FTFY.

You know, we're not really disagreeing, I'm just adding that this has happened before. SCOTUS is different today, so who knows how this will end.

[–]Historybuffman 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Your own quote agrees with me.

The SCOTUS did not rule the male-only draft unconstitutional in 1981. They held that regulating the military is entirely up to Congress.

I am really unsure why you are disagreeing and then posting information that supports me.

Edit: I think I see what you are saying. A lower court said it was unconstitutional and was appealed to the SC, who overruled them, alright.

In that case, we should look at the court opinion. It was deemed constitutional because it is within the power of Congress to regulate the military. The current case is not about that, but the discrimination now that women are allowed in combat roles.

So yes, different SC, but also a different issue. Now that Congress has ruled women can be in combat, they cannot also say they cannot equally be forced into it.

[–]tenchineuro 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The SCOTUS did not rule the male-only draft unconstitutional in 1981.

I never claimed that SCOTUS found the draft unconstitutional, I claimed that a lower court DID find the draft unconstitutional (and hence, the draft WAS found unconstitutional), and this was overturned by SCOTUS. I don't think I was that unclear. It's a fact that the draft was found unconstitutional in 1981.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/453/57
It began in 1971, when several men subject to registration for the draft and subsequent induction into the Armed Services filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania challenging the MSSA on several grounds.
On Friday, July 18, 1980, three days before registration was to commence, the District Court issued an opinion finding that the Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and permanently enjoined the Government from requiring registration under the Act.

I am really unsure why you are disagreeing and then posting information that supports me.

I think the issue here is that I responded to your claim that "The draft was not ruled unconstitutional in 1981", which is false as it was ruled unconstitutional. Your response ignored this to talk about SCOTUS, which changes the subject and does not affect the fact that the draft had been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court.

[–]Debycock1s -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link