Talk:Selective Service System

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] Mobilization (draft) procedures

This section is not clearly written. I assume Congress will set new and different procedures if they deem a future draftr is necessary. When were the procedures mentioned in place? World War II, World War I, the Cold War conflicts, or all of the above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedow (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Punishment

What is the punishment for refusing a draft notice? not mentioned anywhere in the article from what I could see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.35.250 (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it called 'selective service'?

Why is it called this? It appears there is nothing selective about it.

Ali0th (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, speaking as a guy who was actually drafted, it was selective. We underwent a physical exam, auditory testing, visual testing, etc. I was drafted out of law school when my rural draft board decided it needed more warm bodies and that it had already deferred me for college. Other people, like Vice President Joe Biden, were able to get enough draft deferments to avoid military service entirely.

Obsolete codes

How should obsolete draft codes be handled? For example, I wanted to remind myself of what 1-Y was, but found it missing. From a random article I was reminded: 1-Y Qualified for military service only in time of national emergency (classification eliminated 10-Dec-1971) Mulp 09:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1984

Removed entirely the statement that non-registration was at 13% by 1984. A reference to a Mennonite web page was given with it but had no support for it. Moved that ref up. Anybody who was an adult in the country in question at that time knows that that would probably be high for the compliance rate. Lycurgus 16:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize I'm replying to a talk article from a year ago, but this does bring up an interesting idea. I agree that the revert done by Lycurgus was correct and the data was not properly sourced. However, perhaps a short table showing compliance rates by year would be of interest. Some the data is online at the SSS site. Anyway, just a thought. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Foreigners Comment

I have a friend whom was not born in the United States whom was unaware of the requirements to register for the SSS. Is anyone aware if there are any notices or if anyone advises immigrants of the requirement to register for the SSS? I was told of the requirement from my parents, but his family not being from the United States was unaware and did not advise him. 209.6.216.215 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Damian A. Cordialini Jr.

Not being from the U.S., I was wondering, What percentage of people actually register? (See the link to the complinace statistics and analysis.) What about moves in Congress to abolish Selective Service or to extend it to females? (None currently being seriously considered, as of May 2006. But the Selective Service System says that the Health Care Personnel Delivery System, if activated, would probbaly include females.)

I would assume that almost all register, as there are heavy fines if you do not. (No: see the link to the compliance statistics and analysis. Currently there is no serious threat of fines or criminal enforcement, although there are penalties such as ineligibility for Federal financial aid and Federal jobs.) And as far as I know there have been no plans to abolish it, or extend it to females. Mac Domhnaill

To answer the above question, it's awful close to 100% these days. (No: see the link to the compliance statistics and analysis.) No one's really afraid of being drafted anymore, so there's not much of a reason not to register. (No, and no.) But I'm wondering if anyone has any knowledge/interest in the stuff being reported here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peace/Military_Draft.html

1)When is the last time they punished someone for not registering? (The last indictment was in January 1986.) 2)If you claim that your gay, do they actually investigate it? (It varies. But you shouldn't count on being exempted if you are gay, lesbian, or bisexual: many observers belive that too many people would opt out of a draft on groaunds of being at least somewhat bisexual, and that "Don't ask, don't tell" discharge policies would not be sustainable in conjunction with a draft.( 3)As they're heterosexist, do they qualify bisexuals under class f-4? (Yes, as of now.)

Need for Selective Service/Census

Living in a country under a government that issues social security numbers, I really don't understand the need for 'Selective Service' at all. Not that the US wouldn't conceivably require a draft, it would just seem that the government should 'know' who is eligible to be drafted simply by social security records ie. you are automatically 'registered' for the draft at birth. Same goes for the census, you would think the government would already know where the citizens are living.

The government would only know where someone was living based on their social security number if and when the person files an annual tax return. Not everyone is required to file an annual tax return, such as if your annual income is very low or zero. Quacks Like a Duck 14:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, SSNs are not "issued at birth" by the US government. Having a SSN is optional. 74.227.246.102 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Legal Issues"

Does any serious person or group contend that the draft is equivalent to slavery or involuntary servitude under the 13th Amendment? Especially given that, as the article points out, the Supreme Court has ruled on that exact point? This sounds like one of these crackpot theories like that the income tax is illegal or that fringes on a flag make a court a military court. --Max power 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep some serious people sure do

I sure do

As the US Government didnt arrest my parents when they had me circumcised I do not feel beholden to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.110.161 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Medical Draft?

I wonder if there should be some mention of the proposed (but not implemented) medical draft? It seems to re-surface from time to time in the news. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

What is it?Kernel.package (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This Times article has some information.[1] Also, google 'Medical Draft' and you'll get a lot of info. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Leap Year babies?

The "Lottery Procedures" section says that number 366 is only used for lotteries held in a leap year. But the year a lottery is held has nothing to do with the date on which a person was born. Does that really mean that "leap babies" would be exempt unless the lottery was held in a leap year? Sounds pretty strange to me. 86.132.143.247 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how it works. But if you're conscripting people who are 20 years old (I presume this means on the day of conscription), then there is no point conscripting people born on a leap year unless it is the leap day (February 29th) 'til February 28th of the next year. By definition, there will be no people 20 years old born on a leap day except during that time. On the other hand it seems to me it will be simpler to just use 366 and worry about the other stuff later Nil Einne 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Some info: [2]75.142.145.104 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Overview

Perhaps directing people to another site is not the best form for an overview. Perhaps someone could fix that, if no one is interested, I could try putting something together. Sir LoseALot (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

formed dates

why there are 2 dates in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.27.168 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

confirmation

I wanted to confirm that Byron V. Pepitone was indeed Acting Director in 1972-3, so you can remove the question mark after his name in the list of directors. rumjal 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A Campaign Bill?

Just wondering, since Carter didn't sign this until June 1980, was it a campaign move by him to weaken Reagan's "Build up the Military" stance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.19.147 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft and "Smart Ass Cops"

About people who are "4-F", others who would be in a similar problem, what about police who will DEMAND that the person give the cop his/her "Draft card", sees this and makes a comment, even takes action indicating the 4-Fer is FAKING it?("You're 4-F?", then arrests that person for being a "Draft dodger", thinking the status is FAKE and the person is a criminal). Powerzilla (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reason I asked this question is that I had dealt with police who gave Viet Nam War era "draft dodgers" hell. IF the current war gets worse, the "draft" may be initiated. Powerzilla (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

One is only classified 4-F after review of his medical condition by the SSS. It was perhaps possible for someone to "fake it", but also there were a variety of conditions that might result in a classification of 4-F, but would not be apparent without medical examination. My father was 4-F during WWII due to a back injury from his youth, but this injury had little if any effect on his day to day activity. To successfully prosecute someone with 4-F status as a draft dodger, you would have to prove that he had deliberately mislead the draft board and medical examiners about his condition. Wschart (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

25 or 26?

It appears that the requirement is that men be registered from the day they turn 18 until the day they turn 26 — do we generally call that "ages 18-25", "between 18 and 25", or "between 18 and 26"? --Rob* (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

https://www.sss.gov/Fast%20Facts%20Table.htm — for reference. --Rob* (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 2.

Footnote 2 appears to be a broken link. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Section regarding women

Just a thought; rather than the lengthy conjecture and arguments about women and the draft, why not just keeping it to facts such as the pertinent statues and court rulings?--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues

As it is, the majority of the 'Legal issues' section is argumentation and speculation regarding the law. To keep this article encyclopedic, I think limiting the section to the relevant case law would be best. Any objections to trimming this down? Any other court cases (SCOTUS or otherwise) that we should cover beyond Butler v. Perry? IIRC, there were some rulings in the WWI and Vietnam eras that might be noteworthy. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I engaged in some boldness and went ahead and updated the section. I removed some of the speculation that, while interesting, wasn't particularly encyclopedic. A couple of related court cases were also added with necessary citation. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

sss.gov

Greetings, just tried to visit http://www.sss.gov/ but found an error page saying it was either temporarily or permanently moved. I am presently in Germany but have never had any problem accessing such .gov sites before, can anyone verify if the site is still online? Kargin (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As an update, looks like it was a temporary issue which has since returned to normal. Kargin (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)