CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Interesting question, but I believe it has a fairly obvious answer. The government can do pretty much anything it wants. What the government has to analyse in any given situation is whether getting its own way will be worth the potential repercussions (i.e. rioting, revolt, being voted out etc...).
I think this has a lot more scope as a moral question. Should the government be allowed to do it? Then it becomes a really good debate.
I would agree with your own sentiment that no, they should not be allowed to do it. By all means encourage people; even offer them a reward. But forcing someone to do it against their own will oversteps the bounds of what, in my opinion, is reasonable.
I do think the should question is a good one, I just wanted this one to be about the extant rules since I also intend to use it as a vector to the abortion discussion. So I should also specify "in the U.S."
As to the current situation, I do not think that it would be straightforwardly legal under normal circumstances since it would be protected by many of the same cases that protect privacy generally (Union Pacific v. Botsford, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, etc.)
But I do imagine cases where it could be less clear - e.g. what if the government drafted someone into service and then demanded it?
This case of a judge giving people the choice of donating blood in leiu of other penalties is also interesting:
Well, I'm definitely no expert in US law, but what I would expect is that, if the government has the legal power to draft you into the military, it has the legal power to mandate you to give blood. Doesn't the president have special privilege to issue executive orders? If so then that answers the question regardless of any legal challenges, because they would all come after the fact.
The premise for US law is that it is a Constitutionally-limited democratic republic where the power that the government has derives from the Constitution. Though, in practice, it's rarely that simple.
In this case, the draft is considered legal because of a clause (in Art. I Sec. 8) that says Congress has the power to "raise and support Armies".
Similarly, the President can only issue Executive Orders that fall within the powers of the office given by the Constitution to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".
They can't just target and punish individuals that haven't committed any crime (Bill of Attainder).
The document and amendments are fairly short and ambiguous and there is lots of debate on how to resolve those ambiguities.
e.g. does the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" mean exactly what it meant at that time - hangings were ok, or as less cruel methods become available, is there a duty to evolve.
or even simple things like - the Constitution mentions the Army and Navy, but not the Air Force (planes didn't yet exist), so is the Air Force unconstitutional, or do we go by intent?
As for this situation, there are cases that say the government can't force a person to take medication, that a person can't be made to undergo examination as part of a trial, self-defense cases, and, of course, the abortion cases - all of which support a general right to bodily autonomy, but the boundaries aren't exactly clear in every possible case.
5th Amendment :No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Troll you are so fuckin stupid you have said you are no expert so you are open game now boy with maladjusted glasses that you have to wear.
I don't really know if mandating can be done, I really don't think so. However, if you MUST be mandated in an emergency, to help save lives, and don't, you should die.
could the government legally [EDIT: in the U.S.] require you to produce it?
Hello Just:
The 5th Amendment requires due process of law. They can't take a life without due process.. They can't take property without it. They can't arrest you without it, and they can't search you without it.
Therefore, it would be my view that the US Government cannot take your blood.
excon
PS> I recommend the book by Peter McWilliams entitled, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".. It speaks to the absolute absurdity of consensual crimes in a free country.
What if the government offered just compensation (similar to eminent domain)?
Hello again, J:
If the compensation is TRULY just, then nothing is "taken", and nobody's rights are violated.. However, the word "just" implies a meeting of the minds. If they can't agree on a price, the government can't take it.
That's not to say the government OBEYS the Constitution.. I'm merely telling you my interpretation of Due Process..
(Sorry, meant to use clarify instead of dispute for earlier post)
While I see how just compensation could colloquially imply a meeting of the minds - in terms of the 5th amendment, it means something more akin to fair market value. If the government wanted to take my house through eminent domain and I said that it was priceless family treasure that would take billions to part with, they would still just give the market value of the property even without a true meeting of the minds.
5th Amendment : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
