Cruz — and Rubio — back Mike Lee’s bill to make sure Congress, not Obama or the courts, decides whether women can be drafted

posted at 8:01 pm on February 11, 2016 by Allahpundit

This is a no-brainer for Cruz, who came out hard against drafting women last week, but it’s interesting coming from Rubio after he declared himself in favor at the last debate. You can read his motives here as charitably or uncharitably as you like. Charitably: He’s striking a blow for legislative power at the executive’s and judiciary’s expense, a welcome corrective in an age of growing presidential power and judicial social engineering. Uncharitably: He realized belatedly that “let’s draft your daughters” isn’t a sentiment that’ll play well in a Republican primary, especially among the social conservatives he’s trying to win, so he’s backtracking from what he said at the debate to the extent that he can.

Rubio knows Cruz is preparing a roundhouse for him on this topic at the next debate on Saturday night, so here’s his attempt to clinch:

Though Rubio made clear in last Saturday’s Republican debate that he supports opening up the draft to women, Alex Burgos, the Senator’s spokesman, affirmed his support for leaving that decision up to the legislative branch. “Senator Rubio agrees with Senator Lee that Congress needs to determine the future of the Selective Service system and is working on legislation to codify that role and plans to support it,” Burgos said.

Cruz has stated on the campaign trail that he would ardently oppose any attempt to change the current law. “The idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think, is wrong. It is immoral,” he told a New Hampshire audience on Sunday.

Lee’s legislation is an attempt to preempt a scenario in which the Supreme Court takes up another challenge to the selective-service law and decides to “rewrite it like they did for Obamacare,” says Conn Carroll, the Utah Senator’s spokesman.

Why do we need a bill like this? Because the rationale underlying an old Supreme Court precedent upholding an all-male draft has weakened:

The Supreme Court upheld the all-male draft in 1981, finding that women could be excluded because they would not be called to fill critical combat positions during a war. But since the Pentagon began full integration of women that rationale might no longer be valid.

Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testified to the Senate this month that they believe the exemption should be ended.

That’s one reason Rubio gambled on supporting drafting women at the debate. He’s got cover from the military itself for his position, and he’ll surely use it when Cruz comes after him. Another reason is that the polling on this issue isn’t quite as lopsided as you might think if Rasmussen’s new data is accurate:

The poll found that 52 percent of women oppose requiring women to register, while 38 percent favor it and 10 percent are undecided.

Sixty-one percent of male respondents favored requiring that women register.

Overall, the split was more even, with 49 percent supporting and 44 percent opposing.

Most Republicans, 53 percent, said they oppose making women register for the draft, while 49 percent of Democrats said they favor it.

Republicans lean against it but not overwhelmingly, and there may be room for a shift given that the GOP skews male and men support including women in the draft. Even if this issue costs Rubio a tiny bit in the primaries, though, he’s always been touted as the candidate Republicans should ideally want for the general election and that’s how he seemed to be thinking in his debate answer — towards the general election. (It’s hard to remember now, after the debate malfunction heard ’round the world, but prediction markets had Rubio as the favorite for the nomination last weekend.) The “should we draft women?” question reeks of a wedge issue being used by the media to force Republicans to choose between their primary audience, which opposes the idea, and the general electorate, which leans in favor. According to another poll taken three years ago, 59 percent of Americans support including women in the draft. Rubio is trying to stay on that side of the issue to deny Hillary another easy bit of “war on women” demagoguery about paternalism in the general election campaign. Cruz, whose brand rests on proving that he’s the most solid conservative in the race, is less worried about that than about the opportunity to show Republican voters that he’s further right than Rubio on yet another issue.

Why not a compromise: Make women eligible for the draft on the stipulation that their numbers will be called only when the population of draft-eligible males is exhausted? The idea of the draft coming back is fanciful to begin with; might as well just add an extra layer of nonsense by imagining a national emergency so dire that we run through tens of millions of young and middle-aged men in grappling with it. Exit question for con-law junkies: What good will a bill like this do if SCOTUS finds that gender discrimination in the draft violates equal protection? Isn’t it just a political talking point being handed by Lee to his friends Rubio and Cruz?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

um…. do we need another basic civics lesson on the difference between Selective Service and being Drafted into the infantry??

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:03 PM

There is no draft. Why don’t they spend their time on something that exists?

VorDaj on February 11, 2016 at 8:06 PM

The fact that Mr. Roboto was even in favor of this for second….ugh.

cynccook on February 11, 2016 at 8:07 PM

um…. do we need another basic civics lesson on the difference between Selective Service and being Drafted into the infantry??

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:03 PM

What do you think registering with Selective Service is for?

tetriskid on February 11, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Obama shouldn’t be allowed to decide what color undershorts he wears each day.

Good God, when will this nightmare end?

turfmann on February 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM

Obama shouldn’t be allowed to decide what color undershorts he wears each day.

Good God, when will this nightmare end?

turfmann on February 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM

LOL

cynccook on February 11, 2016 at 8:09 PM

Cruz — and Rubio — back Mike Lee’s bill to make sure Congress, not Obama or the courts, decides whether women can be drafted

Obamatrade and the Corker bill?

Maybe they should have put the same effort into those?

sharrukin on February 11, 2016 at 8:09 PM

War on Wimmings!

Judge_Dredd on February 11, 2016 at 8:10 PM

I can’t imagine this being an issue that sways a voter one way or the other.

rbj on February 11, 2016 at 8:10 PM

That’s one reason Rubio gambled on supporting drafting women at the debate.

Because he is a slave to political correctness. No nation of actual men drafts women into the military, and certainly a combat arm, unless it is a more dire emergency than America has ever had.

VorDaj on February 11, 2016 at 8:10 PM

Let me guess, the bill is called “The Congressional Restoration Act of 2016” or something …

ShainS on February 11, 2016 at 8:11 PM

What’s the Conservative position on this?

Chomsky Dance Recital on February 11, 2016 at 8:13 PM

What do you think registering with Selective Service is for?

tetriskid on February 11, 2016 at 8:07 PM

For something that may or may not occur and very likely won’t.

VorDaj on February 11, 2016 at 8:13 PM

Why don’t they spend their time on something that exists?

You’re under the impression that the legislative branch is to propose and pass laws for the benefit of the country instead of using it for an election tool.

lowandslow on February 11, 2016 at 8:13 PM

More failure theater.

Joseph K on February 11, 2016 at 8:13 PM

Rubio looks hungover from a big coke bender in that picture.

Magicjava on February 11, 2016 at 8:14 PM

You’re under the impression that the legislative branch is to propose and pass laws for the benefit of the country instead of using it for an election tool.

lowandslow on February 11, 2016 at 8:13 PM

Sometimes I can be as naive as an innocent 5 year old.

VorDaj on February 11, 2016 at 8:14 PM

There is no draft. Why don’t they spend their time on something that exists?

VorDaj on February 11, 2016 at 8:06 PM

Agreed. This is one of those gotcha things they’ll never ask Democrats. I wish all the candidates had simply refused to answer the question because there is no draft and the likelihood that there ever will be one is minuscule so the debate on this question should be put on hold until such time as we actually have a draft.

Occams Stubble on February 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Don’t give a damn what courts say. Don’t give a damn what the prez says. The power to organize an army rest with congress and only congress. This bill isn’t needed.

bgibbs1000 on February 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Wow, this is super duper important…

…in terms of how we can define what conservatism is or something.

mjbrooks3 on February 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Or… Rubio actually lives in the real world while Cruz is desperately clinging to 1950.

Most women are not qualified for hand to hand combat with men… but there might be a place for them to serve in the armed forces if we were in a war! And why not? In WWII women built ships, flew planes, drove ambulances. There is a place for women in the armed forces during wartime.

Which hopefully, is the only time the draft would ever be used again. A big war like WWII.

I’m sure we can make deferments for raising children and the things like farming that made people deferred during WWII. Some jobs are more important than the war, or to keep the nation solid during war. And women do many of those things, so they would get a deferment.

I think women in combat is a bigger problem than the draft.

petunia on February 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

What do you think registering with Selective Service is for?
tetriskid on February 11, 2016 at 8:07 PM

To register with the government in the case of future Acts of Congress which may restore conscription in the armed forces.

Registering for the Selective Service is not the same as being drafted into the Infantry. The vast majority of military and support personnel is not in the infantry.

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:19 PM

big deal!

Pragmatic on February 11, 2016 at 8:19 PM

Because the rationale underlying an old Supreme Court precedent upholding an all-male draft has weakened

This court and previous courts could give two shits about precedent. They do what they want, when they want. Just like this administration. Roberts said he was all for stare decisis but then wasn’t. Screw them.

Patriot Vet on February 11, 2016 at 8:20 PM

There is no draft. Why don’t they spend their time on something that exists?

VorDaj on February 11, 2016 at 8:06 PM

The ideologues on the left and right are running out of wedge issues.

But, it is a tad ominous. Are the Globalists upset and about to start another war? Is that what they’re hinting at?

cimbri on February 11, 2016 at 8:20 PM

He’s striking a blow for legislative power at the executive’s and judiciary’s expense, a welcome corrective in an age of growing presidential power and judicial social engineering.

Yes.

But he’s making it harder for President Trump to take up a pen and phone and clean up the mess in Washington. This is a calculated move by Rubio. Traitor.

Walter L. Newton on February 11, 2016 at 8:20 PM

Registering for the Selective Service is not the same as being drafted into the Infantry. The vast majority of military and support personnel is not in the infantry.

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:19 PM

So what? This is a distinction without a difference.

cynccook on February 11, 2016 at 8:20 PM

Or… Rubio actually lives in the real world while Cruz is desperately clinging to 1950.
Most women are not qualified for hand to hand combat with men… but there might be a place for them to serve in the armed forces if we were in a war! And why not? In WWII women built ships, flew planes, drove ambulances. There is a place for women in the armed forces during wartime.

petunia on February 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Exactly this.

This should not be controversial. Women played a huge role during WWII.

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM

So what? This is a distinction without a difference.
cynccook on February 11, 2016 at 8:20 PM

If you really don’t think there is a difference between being in the armed services and being in the infantry, I don’t know what to say.

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:23 PM

Or… Rubio actually lives in the real world while Cruz is desperately clinging to 1950.
Most women are not qualified for hand to hand combat with men… but there might be a place for them to serve in the armed forces if we were in a war! And why not? In WWII women built ships, flew planes, drove ambulances. There is a place for women in the armed forces during wartime.

petunia on February 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Exactly this.

This should not be controversial. Women played a huge role during WWII.

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM

Women were drafted in WW2?

whatcat on February 11, 2016 at 8:27 PM

Wow, this is super duper important…

…in terms of how we can define what conservatism is or something.

mjbrooks3 on February 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Actually this is two conservatives being conservative and advancing conservatism and the conservative movement, not surprised you don’t approve.

It isn’t an empty gesture on a somewhat trivial issue that will never pass in order to send a political message for a floundering campaign.

Redstone on February 11, 2016 at 8:29 PM

Why it’s more of the war on women! Who does he think he is keeping women from getting blown apart in a meat grinder! Help Help They’re being repressed!

Wood Dragon on February 11, 2016 at 8:29 PM

Wow, this is super duper important…
mjbrooks3 on February 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Not as important as this.

whatcat on February 11, 2016 at 8:32 PM

If you really don’t think there is a difference between being in the armed services and being in the infantry, I don’t know what to say.

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:23 PM

Anyone who registers for the draft has very little say in which division he may end up in, so by requiring females to register for the draft, they could very well end up in combat. If you don’t understand this, I really don’t know what to say.

cynccook on February 11, 2016 at 8:33 PM

Heh. So, the Legislature which has not stood up for its Constitutional rights and duties for seven years, but now talks about ‘drawing a line in the sand’ over something that neither 0bama nor the courts has any intention of doing.

LegendHasIt on February 11, 2016 at 8:35 PM

Women will now be eligible for all combat jobs in every branch of the armed forces—more than a century after they were first officially allowed to serve in the U.S. Military as nurses.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Thursday that, starting in January, women will be allowed to serve in all front-line combat roles, including in infantry units, in the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Command. About 10 percent of military positions, or 220,000 jobs, currently remain closed to women, he said.

Eligible. Yay.

cynccook on February 11, 2016 at 8:36 PM

How is this remotely controversial, and why is this even needed? Article 1, Section 8 is very, very specific:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

setting the rules regarding the conduct and composition of the armed forces has ALWAYS been an enumerated power of Congress.

That being said, return the exclusion on women in combat arms and I’d be happy to support including women in the selective service.

This women in combat arms stupidity will last precisely until the first videos of line unit females being gang-raped to death by foreign forces hits liveleak or youtube.

flashoverride on February 11, 2016 at 8:39 PM

Most women are not qualified for hand to hand combat with men… but there might be a place for them to serve in the armed forces if we were in a war! And why not? In WWII women built ships, flew planes, drove ambulances. There is a place for women in the armed forces during wartime.

petunia on February 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Do you think women are not doing these things right now in the services?

Barred on February 11, 2016 at 8:40 PM

Agreed. This is one of those gotcha things they’ll never ask Democrats. I wish all the candidates had simply refused to answer the question because there is no draft and the likelihood that there ever will be one is minuscule so the debate on this question should be put on hold until such time as we actually have a draft.

Occams Stubble on February 11, 2016 at 8:15 PM

Right, the next headline will be: Republicans talk of reinstating the Draft

cimbri on February 11, 2016 at 8:40 PM

Nope, it needs to be decided by SCOTUS.

Their previous ruling, saying that it was okay to exempt women, was rendered moot by the Obama administration. The courts need to make clear that the current law violates men’s rights under the 14th Amendment.

Congress can decide whether to require draft registration or not, and it will be up to them if a draft is ever needed… but htey need to take a stand against sexual discrimination.

Equality!

malclave on February 11, 2016 at 8:41 PM

Social conservative kabuki theater. This is the kind of shiny object they attract your attention with, while they count your votes.

HugoDrax on February 11, 2016 at 8:41 PM

Women shouldn’t be in the combat arms at all.

If they wanted to prevent women from being drafted for combat then remove them from the military, or at least the combat arms.

Instead they want to insist that women can serve in the combat arms at their leisure, but they will never be required to assume the responsibilities that men must carry…cuz equality… or somethin’.

sharrukin on February 11, 2016 at 8:41 PM

Obama shouldn’t be allowed to decide what color undershorts he wears each day.

Good God, when will this nightmare end?

turfmann on February 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM

1/20/17

malclave on February 11, 2016 at 8:44 PM

If you really don’t think there is a difference between being in the armed services and being in the infantry, I don’t know what to say.

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:23 PM

Anyone who registers for the draft has very little say in which division he may end up in, so by requiring females to register for the draft, they could very well end up in combat.

cynccook on February 11, 2016 at 8:33 PM

Which is exactly why they are looking to pass legislation to empower Congress as to the scope of Selective Service.

So what’s the problem?

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:47 PM

Registering for the Selective Service is not the same as being drafted into the Infantry. The vast majority of military and support personnel is not in the infantry.

AmerigoChattin on February 11, 2016 at 8:19 PM

True, but unfortunately, that’s not what the government argued – and the Court agreed with – in Rostker v. Goldberg.

The government said they didn’t have to register women because women weren’t eligible for combat and the vast majority of conscriptees were placed in the infantry or other combat roles.

Atlantian on February 11, 2016 at 8:51 PM

Just add it to Obama’s Executive Order to-do list so we don’t have to remember the specifics to be eliminated on the first day of the next president. A SCOTUS ruling makes it permanent.

I’ve lost track and need to review Obama’s EO list to date.

tej on February 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM

Exit question for con-law junkies: What good will a bill like this do if SCOTUS finds that gender discrimination in the draft violates equal protection? Isn’t it just a political talking point being handed by Lee to his friends Rubio and Cruz?

I’d like to see the actual bill, but it’s hard to imagine how they could set this up in a way that would prevent the Supreme Court from stepping in if a majority of justices decided to do so.

I’m wondering how this issue breaks with the current makeup of the court.

novaculus on February 11, 2016 at 8:57 PM

Funny article upstairs

Does Ted Cruz’s Latest Ad Feature A Porn Star?

Er, oooops.

Chomsky Dance Recital on February 11, 2016 at 9:01 PM

This is a big non-issue. There is no need to open up the draft for women, nor will there ever be one. There isn’t even a need to draft men. The Marco Roboto Model T-101 was designed not only for debating the human species, but was made for warfare as well and has once and for all dispelled with this fiction that we need to draft humans.

Jeffrey on February 11, 2016 at 9:02 PM

Make the legislation that “…Congress, not Obama or the courts, decides whether women can be IN COMBAT INFANTRY” and you have a meaningful piece of legislation.

Ricard on February 11, 2016 at 9:06 PM

it’s interesting coming from Rubio after he declared himself in favor at the last debate.

…what’s interesting?…did he declare himself in Spanish or English?…he says different things…in different languages.

JugEarsButtHurt on February 11, 2016 at 9:24 PM

This is a big non-issue. There is no need to open up the draft for women, nor will there ever be one. There isn’t even a need to draft men. The Marco Roboto Model T-101 was designed not only for debating the human species, but was made for warfare as well and has once and for all dispelled with this fiction that we need to draft humans.

Jeffrey on February 11, 2016 at 9:02 PM

Despite the headline, this isn’t about the draft. This is instead about REGISTERING for the draft with the US Selective Service system.

Today, men have to register, women do not.

Atlantian on February 11, 2016 at 9:40 PM

Funny article upstairs
Does Ted Cruz’s Latest Ad Feature A Porn Star?
Er, oooops.

Chomsky Dance Recital. Feb 11, 2016 at 9:01 pm

Hahahaha! Priceless. She says she’s a conservative Christian who’s trying to choose between Trump and Cruz.

cam2 on February 11, 2016 at 10:07 PM

If they want the benefits, they need to suck up the responsibilities. Period. Otherwise you aren’t asking for equality.

Of course, the feminists have never really been after equality. They’re after power – and dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

GWB on February 12, 2016 at 10:42 AM

There should be no draft — for men or for women. A great military comprises people who chose to be in it, who were not obligated to join.

I’m not in favor of altering standards to be in the military, but otherwise I’m for letting in whatever people can pass the standards. I’m tired of this idea that allowing women in combat is “horrific” or “barbaric,’ but having men face the same horrors of war is acceptable, because men are “expendable.” I wouldn’t want anything to happen to my mother or my father, or my daughter or my son.

bmmg39 on February 12, 2016 at 12:14 PM

Cruz — and Rubio — back Mike Lee’s bill to make sure Congress, not Obama or the courts, decides whether women can be drafted

Yes they’ll all stand strong on this until the Democrats accuse the GOPe of putting forth extreme legislation thereby shutting down the government, then it will be Ted Cruz standing alone for what is right.

And that is why I’ll be voting for Ted Cruz.

RJL on February 12, 2016 at 1:56 PM