Draft mandate for fed jobs ruled unconstitutional

Submitted by kellyrrice on Wed, 2009-01-28 22:24

Story here. Excerpt:

'BOSTON – Henry Tucker had worked for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for 17 years when he was told he was going to lose his job — because he hadn't registered for the military draft when he was 18.

Tucker was offered another job as a budget analyst at the National Institutes of Health, but that was withdrawn when the agency learned he never registered.
...
U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock ruled Monday that a separate law that bans employment at federal executive agencies for men who fail to register is an unconstitutional "bill of attainder," an obscure Constitutional provision that prohibits the legislative branch from punishing people without a judicial trial.

Woodlock rejected the argument that the Military Selective Service Act, because it applies only to men, is discriminatory and violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantees.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan said the U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the ruling and had no immediate comment.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Well, I agree with the ruling. However, I disagree with Woodlock about one thing.

"Woodlock rejected the argument that the Military Selective Service Act, because it applies only to men, is discriminatory and violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantees."

The article of course does not refute that argument, and I doubt Judge Woodlock did either. I do however, commend him for having the courage to do the right thing in this case.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Fri, 2009-01-30 04:02

This is not really a victory. The bill of attainder objection can easily be fixed by Congress by including a provision for judicial process before a man can be fired for dodging draft. I agree with xtml that the law should be ruled unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by mcp on Fri, 2009-01-30 04:55

    "Woodlock rejected the argument that the Military Selective Service Act, because it applies only to men, is discriminatory and violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantees."

Maybe the judge figured that if he produced such a wide-ranging ruling, it would provoke an immediate and massive appeal. Perhaps he hoped to just slide this limited ruling through.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Hunchback on Fri, 2009-01-30 13:14