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

**Rx-Ultram** · 12-08-2011, 03:08 AM

That's not what I meant. Okay I botched this up but I thought I explained it. I don't like them saying they're doing this because it's a "constitutional right." It's not a "constitutional right" to serve in the military. THAT is my big deal with their approach. Does that make sense now?

As I mentioned before...your reply that "there is no right to serve" is crap, IMO. No one is saying there is a constitutional right to serve.

They are saying it's a "constitutional right" to not be arbitrarily discriminated against...in the service. This unfairly infringes on their rights to life, liberty and property.

As to whether or not the govt's security interest overrides that right is the question....I think they have a good case.

i.e. If Michele Bachman wins the election and issues an Executive Order that says "since this is Christian nation, that only Christians may serve in the military"...has she violated anyone's rights? Would you say, "since there is no right to serve, she is free, as President, to do this"?

If Dominoes refuses to hire Black people...would an acceptable defense be "there is no constitutional right to work at Dominoes"? I mean, there isn't one, right?

12-08-2011, 03:08 AM	#26
Rx-Ultram Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 438 Senior Member	That's not what I meant. Okay I botched this up but I thought I explained it. I don't like them saying they're doing this because it's a "constitutional right." It's not a "constitutional right" to serve in the military. THAT is my big deal with their approach. Does that make sense now? As I mentioned before...your reply that "there is no right to serve" is crap, IMO. No one is saying there is a constitutional right to serve. They are saying it's a "constitutional right" to not be arbitrarily discriminated against...in the service. This unfairly infringes on their rights to life, liberty and property. As to whether or not the govt's security interest overrides that right is the question....I think they have a good case. i.e. If Michele Bachman wins the election and issues an Executive Order that says "since this is Christian nation, that only Christians may serve in the military"...has she violated anyone's rights? Would you say, "since there is no right to serve, she is free, as President, to do this"? If Dominoes refuses to hire Black people...would an acceptable defense be "there is no constitutional right to work at Dominoes"? I mean, there isn't one, right?
	Quote