H.R.1388 - The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act

To reauthorize and reform the national service laws. view all titles (15)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act as introduced.
  • Popular: GIVE Act as introduced.
  • Short: Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act as introduced.
  • Official: To reauthorize and reform the national service laws. as introduced.
  • Short: GIVE Act as introduced.
  • Official: A bill entitled "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws." as amended by senate.
  • Short: Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act as reported to house.
  • Short: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act as reported to house.
  • Short: GIVE Act as reported to house.
  • Short: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act as passed house.
  • Short: GIVE Act as passed house.
  • Popular: The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act as introduced.
  • Short: Serve America Act as passed senate.
  • Short: Serve America Act as enacted.
  • Official: A bill entitled "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws." as introduced.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-60 of 469 total comments.

  • Moderated Comment

  • Comm_reply
    Lara1967 04/24/2009 12:10am

    The Draft was not volunteer, it was Mandatory.. I swear some of these people needs to read a dictionary… or get an education.

  • Comm_reply
    1LiveFreeorDie1 05/01/2009 2:35am

    Which would make the draft UNCONSTITUTIONAL not the other way around. Which doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary but then an amendment shoudl have been passed excluding military service. That’s why it is so importnat to have a good balanced Supreme Court that is Constitutionally savvy and not just those that will lean in the direction you favor. See how that works? Feel free to pick up a book yourself.

  • Comm_reply
    navyarmy88 02/28/2010 10:26am

    well some people could say that going to school for 12 years is involuntary servitude….

  • Comm_reply
    mbvpixies78 03/30/2009 8:19pm

    How is teaching children to think about and act for the welfare of others “trying to screw up our kids even more”? The problem with our education system is that in indoctrinates our children into a materialistic, sad, hopeless culture of selfishness and greed. Service learning projects are an excellent way to undo the harm of our poor, propagandistic schooling system. To be civil we must learn to serve others before ourselves. If we learn only to serve ourselves then there is no hope for us to be happy in this life.

  • Comm_reply
    Lara1967 04/24/2009 12:13am

    If you as a Parent doesnt know how to teach your children how to be civil with others, it tells others you shouldnt have reproduce in the first place.

    The children are suppose to learn that at home, not be forced by the goverment.

  • Comm_reply
    1LiveFreeorDie1 05/01/2009 2:41am

    Becasue that is supposed to occur at home (it does in my house but it’s about helping others not surrendering yourself to teh government becasue a bunch of weak minded saps think they can do it better). The problem with your statement is the word “our” – you teach your kids that it’s OK for some governement entity to tell them what it means and I’ll teach my kids that it isn’t any of governments business what we as free people do with our time and money. Through mandatory redistributiont he governement has all but slain real charity and turned it into business. I don’t ever recall selling my kids to the government – did you? I think we need to fear Sheep Flu more than Swine Flu…

  • Comm_reply
    jamsim67 05/10/2009 1:09pm

    Serving others is fine and noble, but it should not be forced upon us by the federal government. Also…It should not unconstitutional, and HR1388 is just that.

    For the most part, the education system should be teaching our kids to read, write, Mathematics and HISTORY, because to many kids are coming out of school with any real understanding of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Right’s and what the founders went through to give them to us.

  • Comm_reply
    JonathanDS 05/10/2009 10:33pm

    Wow, spoken like a true nationalist! How can you possibly trust the government with your children’s safety, be it physical or mental? Remember, this is the same government that dropped tons(literally) of LSD on it’s own troops just to see what would happen. They’ve also given pregnant women extremely harmful doses of nuclear radiation, while their husbands were fighting in Europe and the Pacific. They’ve directly exposed US Army, and Air Force personnel to nuclear radiation, used orphanages to test TB vaccines, and, at one point, used the most aggressive forced sterilization legislation on earth. (Hitler got the idea from us, and, simply, took it a step further.)

    If they ever get 1 right from us, you can bet they will feel encouraged, and pursue even more control. After all, who runs for political office? People who want power!
  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/06/2009 2:11pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    As an American citizen, you have the right to protest any new laws and regulations you are opposed to. The ultimate protest is to leave the soil. Doing so would really help the patriots that remain here.

  • Comm_reply
    1LiveFreeorDie1 05/01/2009 2:48am

    Th eultimate protest is to expunge the root causesfor the illnesses that threaten it – to leave the country is not patriotic to the country – it is giving up on it. Granted it’s not as much of a personal investment as say posting some pointless garbage statement anonymously. I would be tempted to say, better that you should preserve our country by going somewhere that has already institutionalized the “changes” you appear to want rather than practicing division here. One wonders what your true motivation is – preserve or pervert?

  • Comm_reply
    Lara1967 04/24/2009 12:06am

    WA Patriot

    In 120(3) it does state

    Sec. 1203)
    (3) Involving high school age youth in the mentoring of middle school students. Authorizes new Summer of Service programs under which students who will be entering grades 6 through 12 at the end of the summer and complete 100 hours of community-based service learning summer projects become eligible for an educational award of up to $500 from funds deposited in the National Service Trust.

    What many do not understand is that Authorized is the same as Mandatory in the definition.

    Containing or constituting an authorization and/or command.

    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mandatory.html

    So this Bill that Obama signed is not really volunteer work, it is Mandatory that your child is forced to do these services.

    Which is a form of Slavery…. since slaves were forced to work for nothing.

  • Comm_reply
    dantheman8282 03/23/2009 6:07am

    There WAS language regarding mandatory service. Not all changes are shown in the OpenCongress.org view. Please note the introduced bill in the US House of Representatives (and search for the word “mandatory” or scroll to the bottom and note the text marked in red):
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&compareto=ih&view=side

    By the way, this GIVE bill was introduced a year ago as well, as HR 2857. See the link to it below:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2857

    The language of “reasonable mandatory service requirement” was very similar to that used a year ago in an ammendment to HR 2857 (see page 4 especially of the PDF): http://www.rules.house.gov/110/amendments/hr2857/McDermott1.pdf

    This ammendment was introduced a year ago by this man:
    http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400262_james_mcdermott

    The language about mandatory service was moved here:
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1444/text

  • Comm_reply
    Seqoia32 03/23/2009 8:13am

    That language has been removed and is NOT in the version passed by the House and being sent to the Senate.

    Therefore, there is no need to get hysterical about “mandatory service”.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    Seqoia32 03/23/2009 1:52pm

    Hmmmm. Pointing out that what people are ranting about is not even in the bill is somehow hysterical?

    Trying to bring some reason to the issue is hysterical?

  • Comm_reply
    melzellers 03/28/2009 10:49am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    United we stand….

  • Comm_reply
    heart 03/24/2009 8:43pm

    As WA Patriot pointed out that ‘language’ has not been removed.

    Section 120(b)(3)
    ‘(B) service-learning is a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.

    Prayer has no place in public schools and ‘service-learning’ has no business being wedged into academic curriculum. Period. Whether this is merely to establish a commission to investigate the benefit of mandatory service or the first giant step towards collectivism it doesn’t matter; either way it’s a serious waste of time and money.

  • Comm_reply
    gmack 03/26/2009 7:52am

    The reason people are responding to language that is no longer in the legislation is due to the intent of it’s authors.

    It’s a weak argument to propose that since the wording was changed that the intentions have somehow changed as well. Those against the bill recognise the false premise.

    Do you think the founders would agree with this legislation?

  • Comm_reply
    NJCentrist 04/04/2009 8:20am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    And your argument is not weak? The language has been altered, so the original intentions behind the legislation do not matter. Who cares about the intentions, really? No mandatory national service law is being passed, so you can relax about that.

    And yes, I think the Founders would have agreed with this legislation, since it does not include mandated national service. The Founders would have been shocked by the size and scope of our federal government today, surely, but establishing and expanding voluntary national service jobs programs does not seem like something that is unconstitutional or untrue to our Founders’ spirit.

  • Comm_reply
    jackbenimble4 04/04/2009 11:55am

    Using the federal government to support these volunteer programs is definitely unconstitutional and against the Founders’ spirit.

    They would’ve definitely supported these volunteer organizations, but never through the government via the forced distribution of tax-collected money.

    Additionally, the original intentions of the bill do matter. When we used to care about the Constitution, we looked to the records of the Constitutional Convention to try to determine what the delegates had intended. The spirit and intentions of every piece of legislation affect the way the law is interpreted. Language is only so precise on its own.

  • Comm_reply
    NJCentrist 04/04/2009 3:00pm

    Well, looking at the Constitutional Convention for answers on how the Constitution should be interpreted isn’t exactly the same as this case. If mandatory service is never mentioned in the bill, then regardless of whether it was ever in there, the bill cannot be interpreted as mandating national service.

    As for using taxpayer money to fund these volunteer organizations being against the Founders’ spirit, I respectfully disagree. How is using taxpayer money to pay for a Clean Energy Corps today different from using taxpayer money to pay for Army regulars back in the era when the Founders were in charge of our government? Both are groups serving the nation, albeit in different ways. Therefore, both would merit taxpayer funding.
    And even if I were to concede this point, the fact remains that our federal government, like it or not, DOES fund these volunteer organizations, and has done so for decades.

  • Comm_reply
    DianaAmerican 04/07/2009 4:53pm

    This Bill was the foundation, now read H.R.1444, a commission to figure out how to make it mandatory!
    Americans are by nature a giving ang helping people, they do not need the government to force them.

  • Comm_reply
    Lara1967 04/24/2009 12:25am

    you are incorrect, since the bill of rights of our 13th Admendment says different…

    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.

    and

    What many do not understand is that Authorized is the same as Mandatory in the definition.

    Containing or constituting an authorization and/or command.

    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mandatory.html

  • Comm_reply
    omega 04/27/2009 12:07pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    oh really? There are many dictionaries out there, what makes this one the “authority”?

    So for Authorized they have:

    1. endowed with authority
    2. authoritative: sanctioned by established authority; “an authoritative communique”; “the authorized biography”
      wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=authorized

    and for mandatory:

    1. mandatary: the recipient of a mandate
    2. compulsory: required by rule; “in most schools physical education is compulsory”; “attendance is mandatory”; “required reading”

    http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=mandatory

    So, in the most likely sense for this discussion, it seems that authorized means being given the authority to do something, whereas, mandatory means to make something compulsory.

    Not exactly the same thing, Not too mention your referencing a Business dictionary rather than a general usage dictionary (like Websters).

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/06/2009 2:18pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    When you give up the electricity, sewage services, paved roads, Internet and cell phones that are the result of PROGRESS that the members of the Constitutional Convention could not have planned for – you can interpret every new progressional change to government and society in that narrow view.

    I’ll expect your reply via a messenger arriving on horseback, since the funding for the internet was purely tax dollars, and you are opposed to such wasteful spending.

  • Comm_reply
    DianaAmerican 04/07/2009 5:13pm

    Part 1: Here are just a few quotes from our Fore Fathers, I think they would have Not agreed with this legislation!

    “When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” – Thomas Jefferson

  • Comm_reply
    DianaAmerican 04/07/2009 5:13pm

    Part 2.
    “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.” – James Madison

    “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 04/07/2009 8:49pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    We live in a different world than our Founders did. This will require that people let go of the past and embrace change. The good news is that the citizens DID embrace change on Nov. 4, 2008. It’s just taking those who lost time to recognize they have no power.


Vote on This Bill

11% Users Support Bill

280 in favor / 2256 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments