-

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The Supreme Court often looks at laws to determine if they're unconstitutional. State courts do the same for state constitutions.

But there has to be a case challenging the law first. SCOTUS doesn't just check whatever gets passed for giggles.

That too.

[Zoo Trouble]

Wait, males have to sign up for the draft in the US?

[Uxupox]

Wait, males have to sign up for the draft in the US?

It's called selective service.

[Farnhamia]

Wait, males have to sign up for the draft in the US?

Yes. No one has been drafted from around 1973 but they do have to sign up. There was no registration between 1975 and 1980 but then them pesky Russkis invaded Afghanistan and President Carter reinstated it. As a side note, according to Wiki, "In 2014, due to a clerical error at the Pennsylvania Department of Transport, information about 14,250 men born in the years 1893–97 (in addition to 1993–97) was provided to the Selective Service System. Draft registration notices were then sent to the men."

[Ashmoria]

yeah but its hard to imagine that they can be successful given the supreme's emphasis on "standing". no one is on the short end of the stick if women don't have to register so how can they bring suit?

It's a man bringing the suit.

...because men get the short end of the stick.

no they don't. it is unequal treatment but men are not harmed by having women not have to register for a draft that we aren't having.

that "standing" thing gets in the way of the unequal treatment part. you have to be harmed in some way.

[Ashmoria]

Wait, males have to sign up for the draft in the US?

yeah its useless but its become a kind of test of whether or not young men will do as they are told--register even though it is stupid.

[Zoo Trouble]

So, it's more or less optional. I don't recall signing up for it and don't see why anyone would.

[Galloism]

It's a man bringing the suit.

...because men get the short end of the stick.

By the Supreme Court's standards: not in the slightest. They generally don't consider hypothetical actions to be sufficient for standing. You need to show that you are indeed injured in order to have standing, and you really cannot do that with a policy that isn't doing anything.

It is the same reason why you will never see a successful legal challenge to the 3/5 clause (which is still in the Constitution): you cannot prove that a hypothetical policy has injured you in any direct way (yes, I know it was once in effect; what I mean is that you cannot legally challenge the fairness of the clause if the clause is doing fuck-all due to the technicality of slavery being illegal; given that selective service and the draft lottery are similarly inert, legal challenges to either have as little weight).

I don't like the idea of it, but I don't like it in the same way I don't like bitter medicine in that it is still a necessity. If injury was not required, then the Supreme Court would be the go-to weapon of changing policy rather than mere judicial review. To change this would require one to severely alter the powers vested in the judicial system, which won't happen in a country where people are paranoid of lawsuits as it is, so trying to get a constitutional amendment which would allow for you to sue on hypothetical grounds would not go over with anybody in the slightest who does not think that radically altering the legal system in order to give their pet cause a chance in court is a good idea.

There's actually significant penalties associated with failure to register, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in lost benefits. You also can't get a federal job. Some states also refuse to issue driver's licenses to those who have failed to register, deny the ability to hold state jobs, get state financial aid, and other things.

It's hard to argue that that is "hypothetical harm".

[Galloism]

It's a man bringing the suit.

...because men get the short end of the stick.

no they don't. it is unequal treatment but men are not harmed by having women not have to register for a draft that we aren't having.

that "standing" thing gets in the way of the unequal treatment part. you have to be harmed in some way.

You can be harmed, rather significantly, for failing to register - if you have a penis. Women are not harmed for failing to register.

I suggest you read some of the legal penalties for failure to register.

Hint: These are not "hypothetical" harms.

[Galloism]

Incidentally, for those interested in this, the NCFM was in the 9th circuit court of appeals last month arguing about this very point.

NCFM Vice President Marc Angelucci barely got three sentences in when the judges stopped him and essentially said there is no need to argue whether the dismissal was erroneous in 2013, because a few days ago the circumstances changed when the Department of Defense announced that women would be allowed in all combat roles. Angelucci, surprised and even somewhat taken back by the court’s position, reserved his remaining time and sat down. The Court understood.

The U.S. Attorney General then argued adamantly that even with the new announcement from the Department of Defense, the case is still not “ripe” (that it, the case is still premature) because there are still developments pending regarding women in combat. She also argued that NCFM and Lesmeister lack standing to sue and do not allege an actual injury.

The judges disagreed, pointing out that alleging a violation of Equal Protection is a claim of injury in and of itself. One judge even compared the situation to forcing only blacks to register for the draft.

http://ncfm.org/2015/12/action/ncfm-vp- ... f-appeals/

They even posted a link to the oral arguments, such as they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlFHYVlat4&feature=youtu.be&t=2h5m15s

(The argument is little painful. This guy isn't the greatest ever.)

[Ashmoria]

no they don't. it is unequal treatment but men are not harmed by having women not have to register for a draft that we aren't having.

that "standing" thing gets in the way of the unequal treatment part. you have to be harmed in some way.

You can be harmed, rather significantly, for failing to register - if you have a penis. Women are not harmed for failing to register.

I suggest you read some of the legal penalties for failure to register.

Hint: These are not "hypothetical" harms.

yes but women not having to register does nothing to worsen that harm.

[Galloism]

You can be harmed, rather significantly, for failing to register - if you have a penis. Women are not harmed for failing to register.

I suggest you read some of the legal penalties for failure to register.

Hint: These are not "hypothetical" harms.

yes but women not having to register does nothing to worsen that harm.

No, but men having to register or face harm has a good showing for an equal protection claim.

The courts have a few ways to redress this. One of those is to make women register, making the equal protection claim null, or to reverse the requirement for men to register, or reverse all statutes which penalize the failure to register (which is effectively the same thing).

[Ashmoria]

yes but women not having to register does nothing to worsen that harm.

No, but men having to register or face harm has a good showing for an equal protection claim.

The courts have a few ways to redress this. One of those is to make women register, making the equal protection claim null, or to reverse the requirement for men to register, or reverse all statutes which penalize the failure to register (which is effectively the same thing).

we'll see. it seems to me that the supremes have refused to hear lots of cases with merit but without standing. until someone is harmed by women not being required to register *I* think that it has a good chance of being rejected by the high court.

[Galloism]

No, but men having to register or face harm has a good showing for an equal protection claim.

The courts have a few ways to redress this. One of those is to make women register, making the equal protection claim null, or to reverse the requirement for men to register, or reverse all statutes which penalize the failure to register (which is effectively the same thing).

we'll see. it seems to me that the supremes have refused to hear lots of cases with merit but without standing. until someone is harmed by women not being required to register *I* think that it has a good chance of being rejected by the high court.

You're looking at this the wrong way around. Men aren't harmed by women not being required to register. Men are harmed by being required to register.

Some harm by law is allowed, but ONLY if it is within the bounds of the fourteenth amendment - namely equal protection of the law.

The fact that men are singled out for registration is a 14th amendment violation - hypothetically. It's the same issue as if only black people were required to register.

[Ashmoria]

we'll see. it seems to me that the supremes have refused to hear lots of cases with merit but without standing. until someone is harmed by women not being required to register *I* think that it has a good chance of being rejected by the high court.

You're looking at this the wrong way around. Men aren't harmed by women not being required to register. Men are harmed by being required to register.

Some harm by law is allowed, but ONLY if it is within the bounds of the fourteenth amendment - namely equal protection of the law.

The fact that men are singled out for registration is a 14th amendment violation - hypothetically. It's the same issue as if only black people were required to register.

nope. it doesn't convince me. women not registering is irrelevant to the harm suffered by men and that harm will not be alleviated by women registering.

as long as we don't have a draft.

[Geilinor]

You're looking at this the wrong way around. Men aren't harmed by women not being required to register. Men are harmed by being required to register.

Some harm by law is allowed, but ONLY if it is within the bounds of the fourteenth amendment - namely equal protection of the law.

The fact that men are singled out for registration is a 14th amendment violation - hypothetically. It's the same issue as if only black people were required to register.

nope. it doesn't convince me. women not registering is irrelevant to the harm suffered by men and that harm will not be alleviated by women registering.

as long as we don't have a draft.

The Equal Protection guarantee will be fulfilled when both men and women are required to register. Otherwise, a man has grounds to claim his rights are being violated.

[Galloism]

You're looking at this the wrong way around. Men aren't harmed by women not being required to register. Men are harmed by being required to register.

Some harm by law is allowed, but ONLY if it is within the bounds of the fourteenth amendment - namely equal protection of the law.

The fact that men are singled out for registration is a 14th amendment violation - hypothetically. It's the same issue as if only black people were required to register.

nope. it doesn't convince me. women not registering is irrelevant to the harm suffered by men and that harm will not be alleviated by women registering.

as long as we don't have a draft.

Imagine if women - and only women - had to register with the federal government and continually update their addresses promptly upon each move or be cut off from educational financial aid, good jobs, and even driver's licenses, for the purposes of... oh, let's say the possible eventuality that teachers are needed they can be drafted as teachers. It hasn't happened in a while, but ONLY women are required to do this.

Would that give rise to an equal protection claim?

[Galloism]

nope. it doesn't convince me. women not registering is irrelevant to the harm suffered by men and that harm will not be alleviated by women registering.

as long as we don't have a draft.

The Equal Protection guarantee will be fulfilled when both men and women are required to register. Otherwise, a man has grounds to claim his rights are being violated.

Or neither.

[Ashmoria]

nope. it doesn't convince me. women not registering is irrelevant to the harm suffered by men and that harm will not be alleviated by women registering.

as long as we don't have a draft.

Imagine if women - and only women - had to register with the federal government and continually update their addresses promptly upon each move or be cut off from educational financial aid, good jobs, and even driver's licenses, for the purposes of... oh, let's say the possible eventuality that teachers are needed they can be drafted as teachers. It hasn't happened in a while, but ONLY women are required to do this.

Would that give rise to an equal protection claim?

I have no idea. equal protection claims are usually about getting IN not getting OUT.

it doesn't much matter, eh? your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant. the supremes will (probably) decide whether or not to take the case some day. only their opinion matters.

[Emanita]

no they don't. it is unequal treatment but men are not harmed by having women not have to register for a draft that we aren't having.

that "standing" thing gets in the way of the unequal treatment part. you have to be harmed in some way.

You can be harmed, rather significantly, for failing to register - if you have a penis. Women are not harmed for failing to register.

I suggest you read some of the legal penalties for failure to register.

Hint: These are not "hypothetical" harms.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but first you have to throw them before any charges can be pressed for assault with a deadly weapon.

They are "hypothetical" if they aren't being used, in the same sense that a person is hypothetically driver in that they have a driver's license even if they haven't touched a steering wheel ever since January of 1986. Please tell me when you can find an example of it being charged in this century, because I can assure you that the charge hasn't used ever since January of 1986, and it is definitely not because every American became studious about filing paperwork in February, it is because people chose to stop enforcing the law.

Let me put it this way: it is the law in Florida that stealing a horse is a capital crime. You will never see a successful legal challenge against it because, in order for the legal challenge to have standing to challenge it, they would have to steal a horse and be sentenced to death for it. The judiciary branch can only review laws as they are used, because a crime that is never charged will, by its nature, never reach the courtroom in the first place. If it is never a legal problem, then you will have to take it to the people who write the legal code since judiciaries do not write the laws, only interpret how they are executed should they be executed and, additional to that, interpret the constitutionality.

The whole problem of standing is what makes challenging laws so necessarily weird. Laws have been challenged throughout history with many examples of legal organizations trying to find the best person who broke a law which said organization finds to be unjust in order to make the case or, in some cases, even pressuring people to break laws so that they can challenge it in the courts. The Scopes Monkey Trial is a good example of this, where the ACLU chose for Scopes to break the law in the hopes that the state would press the specific charges that they would challenge. Another good example is the Rosa Parks trial where the NAACP shopped-around for the accused that would best fit their goals regarding the challenging of segregation on public transportation.

In order to challenge the legal penalties of not signing-up for the draft the FBI would have to press charges (which, again, they haven't done for thirty years now) and prove that you were intentionally failing to register, which will likely won't happen since the FBI has now thirty-years of no fucks or charges given about registration.

As for the challenges that exist, they, by nature of the justice system, can only challenge what was done, which means you could never challenge things that aren't happening in the case purely because it is legally possible. Let me explain with a hypothetical example of a car that gets pulled-over. The cop, smelling controlled substances, proceeds to search the vehicle. As is legal in this cop's jurisdiction, the cop looks-at the laptop in the vehicle and browses through the person's search history, and finds evidence of smuggling and so makes the arrest. Charges are pressed based upon the crime, and the defense challenges the legality of the rationale for being able to browse the contents of electronics in a vehicle which is being searched and also challenges that civil forfeiture constitutes theft. The former is official, the later is quickly proven to not have happened. There would be standing for the challenge to the idea that a vehicle search inherently confers authority to search electronic devices, but the fact that the later did not occur would thus mean that the challenge is irrelevant to the case and that particular challenge would thus be dismissed.

This would ultimately mean that any challenge to the legality of registration would not be able to touch criminal charges since they are, again, not happening. Because of that, the only aspects that can be touched are those that were used in the individual case. I do not know which case you are referring to, but there is likely to be problems even there since, by law, registration is automatic with the acquisition of any form of government-issued identification. I am not entirely sure if it was state law or federal law, but there is the possibility of citing precedent of an assumption that possession of any form of government-issued identification is a basic part of being a legal adult in America and could thus challenge the case as an exercise in frivolity. If it does get dismissed, then there will be no legal avenues for challenge it whatsoever (disregarding the hypothetical scenario where the FBI starts pressing charges for non-registration again and guilty verdicts are acquired [which, I must repeat, is purposefully not easy]) and will ultimately be purely a problem that you would have to take-up with the appropriate law-making bodies alongside such issues as capital horse theft.

[Galloism]

Imagine if women - and only women - had to register with the federal government and continually update their addresses promptly upon each move or be cut off from educational financial aid, good jobs, and even driver's licenses, for the purposes of... oh, let's say the possible eventuality that teachers are needed they can be drafted as teachers. It hasn't happened in a while, but ONLY women are required to do this.

Would that give rise to an equal protection claim?

I have no idea. equal protection claims are usually about getting IN not getting OUT.

it doesn't much matter, eh? your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant. the supremes will (probably) decide whether or not to take the case some day. only their opinion matters.

What a cop out. Of course our opinion matters.

Basically, if a person doesn't have strong feelings about a sex segregated draft, they're not really all that interested in equality.

[Galloism]

You can be harmed, rather significantly, for failing to register - if you have a penis. Women are not harmed for failing to register.

I suggest you read some of the legal penalties for failure to register.

Hint: These are not "hypothetical" harms.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but first you have to throw them.

They are "hypothetical" if they aren't being used, in the same sense that a person is hypothetically driver in that they have a driver's license even if they haven't touched a steering wheel ever since January of 1986. Please tell me when you can find an example of it being charged in this century, because I can assure you that the charge hasn't used ever since January of 1986, and it is definitely not because every American became studious about filing paperwork in February, it is because people chose to stop enforcing the law.

These penalties are still in place.

http://www.finaid.org/students/selectiveservice.phtml

Male students who fail to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 are ineligible for Federal student loan and grant programs, including Pell Grants, Federal Work Study, and Stafford Loans. (Parents who want to borrow a PLUS loan do not have to satisfy the registration requirement.) Several states have also made Selective Service registration a prerequisite for state financial aid and for matriculation at public colleges and universities.

Even if you disagree with the requirement, you should register. Failure to register can have a serious negative impact on your ability to obtain a driver's license, qualify for financial aid, pursue an education, or obtain employment.

https://www.salliemae.com/plan-for-coll ... ell-grant/

Ineligible students for a Pell Grant
Owes a refund on a Title IV grant
In default on a Title IV loan
Male who has not registered with the Selective Service
Currently incarcerated (in jail)

https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/eligibility/basic-criteria

Our general eligibility requirements are that you must

demonstrate financial need (for most programs);
be a U.S. citizen or an eligible noncitizen;
have a valid Social Security number (with the exception of students from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau);
be registered with Selective Service, if you’re a male (you must register between the ages of 18 and 25);

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

Most states, as well as the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Virgin Islands, have passed laws requiring registration for men 18–25 to be eligible for programs that vary on a per-jurisdiction basis but typically include driver's licenses, state-funded higher education benefits, and state government jobs.[40] Alaska also requires registration to receive an Alaska Permanent Fund dividend.[40]

https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Re ... -Penalties

CITIZENSHIP

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.

This is a very real harm - delivered now today. Criminal penalties are not the only harm ever.

[Ashmoria]

I have no idea. equal protection claims are usually about getting IN not getting OUT.

it doesn't much matter, eh? your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant. the supremes will (probably) decide whether or not to take the case some day. only their opinion matters.

What a cop out. Of course our opinion matters.

Basically, if a person doesn't have strong feelings about a sex segregated draft, they're not really all that interested in equality.

oh I have an opinion on the sex segregated draft. its wrong. my opinion on whether or not the supreme court will take a particular case is irrelevant because I have no input, not even an indirect one, on whether or not they will take it.

[Galloism]

What a cop out. Of course our opinion matters.

Basically, if a person doesn't have strong feelings about a sex segregated draft, they're not really all that interested in equality.

oh I have an opinion on the sex segregated draft. its wrong. my opinion on whether or not the supreme court will take a particular case is irrelevant because I have no input, not even an indirect one, on whether or not they will take it.

Eh, we put it up enough times they'll take it just to make it go away.

The problem is, the penalties for defying the requirement to register are so severe, unless you are rich enough to afford a personal driver and pay for your own college, most men can't afford to defy the law and give rise to the equal protection claim.

(retrospectively, kinda wish I had done that back when I could, but hindsight's 20/20)

[Ashmoria]

oh I have an opinion on the sex segregated draft. its wrong. my opinion on whether or not the supreme court will take a particular case is irrelevant because I have no input, not even an indirect one, on whether or not they will take it.

Eh, we put it up enough times they'll take it just to make it go away.

The problem is, the penalties for defying the requirement to register are so severe, unless you are rich enough to afford a personal driver and pay for your own college, most men can't afford to defy the law and give rise to the equal protection claim.

(retrospectively, kinda wish I had done that back when I could, but hindsight's 20/20)

you keep saying it but it still doesn't convince me. women having to register wouldn't make those detriments any less.

the whole thing should be dumped. we don't need registration, the government knows who we are and where we live. an emergency draft would be no problem even if no one registered.