H.R.5741 - Universal National Service Act

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Universal National Service Act as introduced.
  • Short: Universal National Service Act as introduced.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-46 of 46 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    invictusaequitas 07/28/2010 11:29am

    You mean like how those who WILLINGLY sign on to serve in the military are paid? Monetary appeals are moot. This is a question of personal freedoms being ignored and trampled on, yet again, at the whim of government. Funny how a man of Rangel’s age berates those who support war and oppose this bill, yet he too is safe from legislation such as this.

  • bunbun 07/28/2010 6:22am

    compulsory service levels the playing field as long as everyone has to do it. i do not believe that hawkish politicians could sell their wars as easily if every single family and household, including their own, was in service. a general draft would make anti-war critiques much more powerful and convincing because we would all be personally affected by waging war. as it stands now it is easy to brush off nay saying tree hugging pacifist stoner hippies because they don’t know anything about serving their country. a draft would mobilize a much more pervasive and respected anti-war movement extremely quickly. i wouldn’t worry about this passing congress.

    at the same time you accept the benefits and protections of being a u.s. citizen you have necessarily surrendered a large chunk of your individual sovereignty to the republic and its government. nothing new to see here.

  • Comm_reply
    invictusaequitas 07/28/2010 11:32am

    “at the same time you accept the benefits and protections of being a u.s. citizen you have necessarily surrendered a large chunk of your individual sovereignty to the republic and its government”

    This is unconstitutional and sounds like something Hitler or that nut-job in Iran would say. The government is responsible for protecting its citizenry, in this country specifically, and has no right to and does not own our bodies. Suggesting otherwise is a major flaw.

    Now, being a relatively reasonable person, I understand that while this ISN’T SUPPOSED to be the case, sadly, doesn’t mean that it actually is; I understand entirely what you’re saying.

  • Somfbah 07/28/2010 8:40am

    Will this include illegals? They get our benefits…. just saying.

  • Comm_reply
    invictusaequitas 07/28/2010 11:34am

    LOL

    I’m almost certain the likes of Rangel and his boys would find a way to make an argument for how only the oppressive white-male majority will be affected by this bill.

  • jemc50 07/28/2010 1:10pm

    This is an unnecessary bill and a waste of Congress’ time. The U.S. already has a Selective Service system for a draft to be reinstated in an emergency. The U.S. already has a multitude of volunteer programs (i.e. Peace Corps, VISTA, etc.). A two year stint in the military would be a huge waste of time and money, since an individual would just be getting to a point of being an asset to the service they would be getting out.

  • vigilant1 07/29/2010 1:23pm

    I didn’t see anything in the text of the bill that said a person would be paid for this service, and even if they were it would just mean more people on the government payroll.

    This bill would give the President way to much power and too much latitude in how to enforce it. If you disagree with the powers that be you get sent to the front lines, you lick their boots you get a better assignment.

    Wake up people this is definitely socialism in the making.

  • AliciaBlake 07/29/2010 9:10pm

    How is this bill reconciled with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?” You can’t pass a bill into law that requires service in the armed forces or another branch of the government (ie homeland security and what-not) and then deny gays and lesbiens the option of serving openly. As a vet, I know that I would much rather have an openly gay airman serving next to me than someone who has no desire to put their life on the line for our country and simply is serving the minimum time to meet the legal requirements. We need men and women who are serving our country for the right reasons.

  • kinge48 07/30/2010 3:16pm

    For all who fail to realize it; which apparently includes Rep. Rangel, this would be involuntary servitude. Why is this such an important distinction to make you ask? Because it is Constitutionally ILLEGAL! I would like to ask Rep. Rangel to read the United States Constitution (you know, that document you swore to uphold when you took office?), specifically the Thirteenth Amendment. To help in this endeavor I’ll place it here so it is easy for you (and everyone else) to find:

    “Section 1. 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.

    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

    Uphold freedom from slavery, and dismiss this unconstitutional bill.

  • jeremia 07/30/2010 5:26pm

    I wonder how those who work in this Three Ring Circus (Schoolhouse Rock was right) — Executive, Legistlative, and Judicial — will write themselves and their families out of this one.

  • Eightbitgnosis 08/03/2010 11:25am

    This is the scary kind of insanity

  • wbg2271 08/11/2010 2:19am
    I can’t believe that 28 people think this is a good bill,sorry

    29 forgot about Rangel.

  • ianiam 08/17/2010 4:41pm

    εγο ειμι ο δοθλοσ

  • Sal_The_Tiller 09/28/2010 9:51pm

    So has this died in committee? Or is it just taking a long time?

  • frogurt429 11/03/2010 11:19pm

    this sounds like unnecessary radical totalitarian practices being forced upon free peoples. i thought we learned our lesson in vietnam, this sounds like 5x the vietnam draft

  • pkf3221 11/15/2012 10:39pm

    This bill has a lot of potential.I think it should be mandatory for every American to serve his/her country at some point in their life.Two years is not that long of a time.Just look at what Woodrow Wilson did with the National Parks during his time.If we could redirect our narrow assumptions of this being a ‘slave bill’ and take a step back, we may see opportunity in this piece of legislation. How many young people do you know that would benefit from a little discipline, perspective, and responsibility?What if we provided alternative service options,i.e.Americorps, Peace Corps, Teach For America, Road Work, Park Service, etc…Many Americans walk around with this self-entitlement swagger that is completely unwarranted. Let’s put the Unity back in our name and get our hands dirty again. We are losing our craftsmanship-Take pride in what you can create. Why not instill some work ethic back in our youth? It will give them a break from all of these screens at the least.Love your Country.


Vote on This Bill

8% Users Support Bill

41 in favor / 466 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments