DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Law School Team to Fight U.S. Ban on Women in Combat, Draft

**QvhhbjLy** · 12-07-2011, 08:45 PM

I don't like the idea of these law students doing it - when they have no military experience and they state "constitutional right" as their basis. THAT is what gets me.

Did I say they should get preferential treatment when choosing a job? Where did I say that because now I'm confused? All I see in my comment you replied to is that they should open combat MOSs to women. I didn't say that women would flock to them. Just that those would be another option IF they qualify. Aso if someone gets a 16 on their ASVAB - male or female - I don't think they're getting in. They are returning to standards again with all the budget cuts and having to get rid of people. I guess I should've clarified more of "I don't like the idea of this." That was a bit vague. No we shouldn't get preferential treatment on choosing a job but we don't get preferential treatment on choosing a job now anyway.

If it makes you feel any better, I believe I saw where you were coming from and actually applaud it. You weren't attacking the principle that is wrong, it was attacking the method used to support the principle, which I agree, is using the wrong approach. These law students don't need military experience to understand law, but they should at least understand law, especially the supreme law of the land. Attacking denial of access based on "Constitutional Rights" is a weak argument, you are exactly correct. It also pains me how frivolously people invoke the term absent the actual understanding of what the US Constitution is and what it does. If they want to approach it with a law that does apply they should go back as recent as the Lyndon B. Johnson years, plenty of stuff there. Then they of course will run into the wonder acronym BFOQ, which when faced with that you're also correct, a little foreknowledge of what are legitimate requirements wouldn't hurt their position.

12-07-2011, 08:45 PM	#17
QvhhbjLy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 373 Senior Member	I don't like the idea of these law students doing it - when they have no military experience and they state "constitutional right" as their basis. THAT is what gets me. Did I say they should get preferential treatment when choosing a job? Where did I say that because now I'm confused? All I see in my comment you replied to is that they should open combat MOSs to women. I didn't say that women would flock to them. Just that those would be another option IF they qualify. Aso if someone gets a 16 on their ASVAB - male or female - I don't think they're getting in. They are returning to standards again with all the budget cuts and having to get rid of people. I guess I should've clarified more of "I don't like the idea of this." That was a bit vague. No we shouldn't get preferential treatment on choosing a job but we don't get preferential treatment on choosing a job now anyway. If it makes you feel any better, I believe I saw where you were coming from and actually applaud it. You weren't attacking the principle that is wrong, it was attacking the method used to support the principle, which I agree, is using the wrong approach. These law students don't need military experience to understand law, but they should at least understand law, especially the supreme law of the land. Attacking denial of access based on "Constitutional Rights" is a weak argument, you are exactly correct. It also pains me how frivolously people invoke the term absent the actual understanding of what the US Constitution is and what it does. If they want to approach it with a law that does apply they should go back as recent as the Lyndon B. Johnson years, plenty of stuff there. Then they of course will run into the wonder acronym BFOQ, which when faced with that you're also correct, a little foreknowledge of what are legitimate requirements wouldn't hurt their position.
	Quote