American War Dodgers

[bush_cheney2004]

And your mom or dad signed for you?

Pay attention....they had to...it's the law. Thanks Mom

[M.Dancer]

Pay attention....they had to...it's the law. Thanks Mom

I knew that. My mom once signed for me but that wasn't the Excited States....I think for the benefit of others you had to spell it out.

[Guest American Woman]

Pay attention....they had to...it's the law. Thanks Mom

Pay attention .... I'm not talking about 17 year olds .... I'm talking about young people between the ages of 18 and 21 who can join the military without parental permission but are minors when it comes to having alcohol. The government has determined that they are minors who are not responsible enough to drink a beer, but are responsible enough to sign a binding military contract and go to war.

link

Edited August 13, 2008 by American Woman

[capricorn]

Where did you read it, he asked to nobody in particular....

I think Topaz has everyone here on the ignore list.

[M.Dancer]

Pay attention ....

The government has determined that they are minors who are not responsible enough to drink a beer, but are responsible enough to sign a binding military contract and go to war.

Pay attention...18 year olds aren't minors. The federal government considers 18 year olds to be adults. Alcohol is irrelevant. On the otherhand, maybe you would like that kids can't vote till they can drink?

[bush_cheney2004]

Pay attention .... I'm not talking about 17 year olds .... I'm talking about young people between the ages of 18 and 21 who can join the military without parental permission but are minors when it comes to having alcohol. The government has determined that they are minors who are not responsible enough to drink a beer, but are responsible enough to sign a binding military contract and go to war.

Is this your thread? Try to keep up....

It's the same as any other contract.....and more scrutinized than most. We also can't be a member of Congress until age 25, or president until 35. Shucks....some things just don't want to fit into your neat little perspective.

[capricorn]

P.S. My kid's middle school actually compiled names, addresses and phone numbers of the entire student body for distribution. One stop shopping for child molesters.

Yeah. And those school yearbooks come in handy too for all kinds of recruitment...and you even get a picture.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah. And those school yearbooks come in handy too for all kinds of recruitment...and you even get a picture.

Correct.....bitching about military recruiter access is just politics. When I go to the state fair next week, the longest line will be for a seat in an Air Guard F-16.

[M.Dancer]

Correct.....bitching about military recruiter access is just politics. When I go to the state fair next week, the longest line will be for a seat in an Air Guard F-16.

And at the Canadian Exhibition the line ups will be for the Leopards and LAV 3s....(we don't have enough Cf-18 to go on tour...)

[M.Dancer]

Correct.....bitching about military recruiter access is just politics.

Well, this is a Political board.....but bitching about it in a thread about kickin out a fake refugee....that just disingenuos whinging.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, this is a Political board.....but bitching about it in a thread about kickin out a fake refugee....that just disingenuos whinging.

Forgive them for they know not what they do.

Please send that deserter dirtbag home at once so he can court martialed, dishonorably discharged, and branded like Chuck Connors.

[M.Dancer]

My only regret about this case is it took too long and there isn't a hope in hell the tax payer will be able to recoup the massive legal and court costs.

The Canadian Nationalist in me says, there most be some way we can hold the US armey liable, they're the ones who lost their lamb, perhpas they would be a finders fee.

I wonder if he worth a million?

[Guest American Woman]

Is this your thread? Try to keep up....

It's the same as any other contract.....and more scrutinized than most. We also can't be a member of Congress until age 25, or president until 35. Shucks....some things just don't want to fit into your neat little perspective.

People aren't considered a "minor" because they can't be a member of congress or the POTUS. They are considered a minor when it comes to drinking alcohol, which is why they are charged with an MIP (Minor in Possession). So instead of trying to cloud the issue with irrelevancies, try sticking to the actual topic. And it's already been explained ad naseum why a military contract isn't "the same as any other contract," so I won't go there yet again.

So I repeat: "until they are no longer a minor in any respect, they should be considered a minor by the military same as they are in Canada." Unless you can discuss that, unless you can convincingly explain why someone who the government doesn't think is responsible enough to drink a beer IS responsible enough to sign a binding military contract and go to war, well then, shucks, I'll just have to conclude that you have no argument.

Edited August 13, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

....I wonder if he worth a million?

Hell no, but it's like those credit card commercials....a dishonorably discharged scumbag is priceless.

[M.Dancer]

Forgive them for they know not what they do.

........and branded like Chuck Connors.

But inside, he knew he was a man.....

[bush_cheney2004]

But inside, he knew he was a man.....

Exactly....what do you do when your branded, but you know you're a man?

[bush_cheney2004]

People aren't considered a "minor" because they can't be a member of congress or the POTUS. They are considered a minor when it comes to drinking alcohol, which is why they are charged with an MIP (Minor in Possession). So instead of trying to cloud the issue with irrelevancies, try sticking to the actual topic. And it's already been explained ad naseum why a military contract isn't "the same as any other contract," so I won't go there yet again.

But that isn't the topic at all....just your pet peeve (one of many it would seem). Alcohol possession does not define a minor...many legal protocols apply.

So I repeat: "until they are no longer a minor in any respect, they should be considered a minor by the military same as they are in Canada." Unless you can discuss that, unless you can convincingly explain why someone who the government doesn't think is responsible enough to drink a beer IS responsible enough to sign a binding military contract and go to war, well then, shucks, I'll just have to conclude that you have no argument.

I don't live in Canada.....and neither does the US Congress. Take it up with them....it is not the "military" you have hijacked this thread for.

What's wrong with going to war? That's far safer than going to Compton, CA.

Edited August 14, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

People aren't considered a "minor" because they can't be a member of congress or the POTUS. They are considered a minor when it comes to drinking alcohol, which is why they are charged with an MIP (Minor in Possession). So instead of trying to cloud the issue with irrelevancies, try sticking to the actual topic. And it's already been explained ad naseum why a military contract isn't "the same as any other contract," so I won't go there yet again.

So I repeat: "until they are no longer a minor in any respect, they should be considered a minor by the military same as they are in Canada." Unless you can discuss that, unless you can convincingly explain why someone who the government doesn't think is responsible enough to drink a beer IS responsible enough to sign a binding military contract and go to war, well then, shucks, I'll just have to conclude that you have no argument.

So you are saying america allow minors to vote and be executed for capital offences. I believe they can also at 18, enter into a contract with a parents permision.

How enlightened.

Excuse me, a have to find a dead horse for you....

I Gotta say, using state liqour laws as a benchmark for contract law leaves me wanting a beer....

Edited August 14, 2008 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

So I repeat: "until they are no longer a minor in any respect, they should be considered a minor by the military same as they are in Canada."

In Canada you need your parents permision to join if you are under 18....most places 18 year olds can't legally drink....

the dead horse is here....do you still wat to flog it?

[Peter F]

Exactly....what do you do when your branded, but you know you're a man?

Live well.

[GostHacked]

Pay attention...18 year olds aren't minors. The federal government considers 18 year olds to be adults. Alcohol is irrelevant. On the otherhand, maybe you would like that kids can't vote till they can drink?

Actually alcohol is relevant. Old enough to fire a gun in battle with the intent to kill, but not old enough to have a beer afterwards to calm the nerves.

If you want to treat them like an adult, give them all the rights as adults. If you don't, then you are considering them as minors still. This really should be a black and white issue. But there are many grey areas.

Ontario it is legal to drink at 19, eventhough you are considered an adult at 18. Quebec, Manitoba have the drinking age at 18... not sure about the rest of the provinces.

You can sign up for the military at 18. I did. Well, I applied, Air Force. My grades were what killed me.

[M.Dancer]

Actually alcohol is relevant. Old enough to fire a gun in battle with the intent to kill, but not old enough to have a beer afterwards to calm the nerves.

If you want to treat them like an adult, give them all the rights as adults. If you don't, then you are considering them as minors still. This really should be a black and white issue. But there are many grey areas.

Ontario it is legal to drink at 19, eventhough you are considered an adult at 18. Quebec, Manitoba have the drinking age at 18... not sure about the rest of the provinces.

You can sign up for the military at 18. I did. Well, I applied, Air Force. My grades were what killed me.

Except it is irrelevant. Not all states have the same drinking laws...so in effect if they were to follow that hair brained notion, the US could recuit in one state that allows under 21 drinking but not in others. Using this as a benchmark is arbitry and doesn't conform to the multitude of other laws which clearly show that a person is considered an adult at 18.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (Title 23 U.S.C. §158) was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress as a mechanism whereby all states would become thereafter required to legislate and enforce the age of 21 years as a minimum age for purchasing and publicly possessing alcoholic beverages. Under the Federal Aid Highway Act, a state not enforcing the minimum age would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.[1]

While this act did not outlaw the consumption of alcoholic beverages by those under 21 years of age, some states extended its provisions into an outright ban. However, most states still permit "underage" consumption of alcohol in some circumstances. In some states, no restriction on private consumption is made, while in others, consumption is only allowed in specific locations, in the presence of consenting and supervising family members, and/or during religious occasions.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Mini...Age_Act_of_1984

In the United States as of 1995, minor is legally defined as a person under the age of 18, although, in the context of alcohol, people under the age of 21 may be referred to as "minors." However, not all minors are considered "juveniles" in terms of criminal responsibility. As is frequently the case in the United States, the laws vary widely by state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)

But using the state dictated drinking age as a benchmark makes as much sence as using the age of consent....neither of which are synonymous with the legal age of adulthood.

[White Doors]

Pay attention .... I'm not talking about 17 year olds .... I'm talking about young people between the ages of 18 and 21 who can join the military without parental permission but are minors when it comes to having alcohol. The government has determined that they are minors who are not responsible enough to drink a beer, but are responsible enough to sign a binding military contract and go to war.

link

I agree. I have alwyas thought it odd that the drinking age was 21. You can drive a car, vote, and go to war, but not drink? A leftover from the prohibition age I'd say. The problem here is not to raise the age of recruitment to 21, it is to lower the drinking age to 18.

[M.Dancer]

I agree. I have alwyas thought it odd that the drinking age was 21. You can drive a car, vote, and go to war, but not drink? A leftover from the prohibition age I'd say. The problem here is not to raise the age of recruitment to 21, it is to lower the drinking age to 18.

And if you want to take that to the logical conclusion, during prohibition, no one should be allowed to be recruited....

[Sulaco]

First - there is a general concept in US comman law as an aggreegate - a person with the age capacity to do A, does not necessarily have the capacity to do B. The argument aboput drinking and enlistment is specious.

Now onto age of capacity to enter into contracts:

Gramaglia v. U.S.

766 F.2d 88

C.A.2 (N.Y.),1985.

Jun 26, 1985 (Approx. 4 pages)

Gramaglia also contends that because he was a minor at the time he signed the discharge form, he may avoid the consequences of his "contract" of separation from the Army under the common law infancy doctrine. Apart from its other substantive failings, this argument has a foundational flaw. For although Gramaglia cites authority for the proposition that agreements between enlisted men and the military should be subject to traditional contract principles, see, e.g., Cinciarelli v. Carter, 662 F.2d 73, 78 (D.C.Cir.1981), he cites no authority to support the proposition that such agreements may be disaffirmed under the infancy doctrine. In fact, the Supreme Court has twice held that with respect to military matters a person of sufficient age to enter the military may not avail himself of the infancy doctrine. United States v. Williams, 302 U.S. 46, 48-50, 58 S.Ct. 81, 82- 83, 82 L.Ed. 39 (1937) (infancy doctrine could not be used to void minor serviceman's cancellation of military insurance contract); In re Morrissey, 137 U.S. 157, 159, 11 S.Ct. 57, 34 L.Ed. 644 (1890) (minor's enlistment effectuated change of status and the enlistment contract was not voidable under the infancy doctrine). Thus, following Williams and Morrissey, we hold that Gramaglia may not rely on the infancy doctrine to disaffirm his discharge "contract."

Ergo - while the common law of various states does govern contracts between the enlisted and the military to some extent, the common law as to incapacity based on minority status is inapplicable to whether a valid contract is formed.

Furthermore, lest we forget, penalties for breaking the enlistment contract are "criminal" in nature. There is no reason to believe that civil common law should be applied to the breaking of contracts. It might be - but that's up to the military code, federal courts and congress.

As an aside - the age of capacity to enter contracts is 18 in most states. Furthermore, even if a contract is entered into when a person is under 18, it can become valid if the party reaches the age of capacity and at that point continues to benefit from the contract.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Sulaco