Disclaimer: all opinions on this thread are solely those of the writer, who happens to be a member of the Constitution Party of Washington, and is not to be considered an official statement of the party.

National Service, what is it, do we need it, and it is “constitutional”?
National Service is the idea that serving one’s country, whether in the military or as a civilian, is the duty of a citizen. An organized government sponsored and financed National Service is where the GIVE Act (HR 1388) is taking us. Volunteers, some who receive a stipend, some who may receive educational support and some who do not, are organized and assigned to tasks by a central agency. Many will stay in centralized housing facilities; others will work where they live. This agency, which is in fact not an agency of the government, will be in-sourced to the “Corporation for National and Community Service” . The government will decide what needs to be done and which “volunteers” are most suited to the task at hand. It will also lend financial and personnel support to select charitable organizations, those that would meet specific qualifications. Wow, this sounds great, a whole citizenry mobilized as “volunteers”. Think of all the work that can be accomplished!

Let’s look back about three years, to Hurricane Katrina and the second Battle for New Orleans. The government did such a good job of organizing a rescue effort that it received the plaudits of all Americans and the world. Well, maybe in another life. It was really utter chaos. Civil rights were trampled, people were unnecessarily stranded or aid was delayed in arriving. Some people were transported to other parts of the country without knowing where they were going. The real heroes were all the volunteers, on their own or with private charities, who spent weeks on their own bringing in supplies for immediate needs and for cleanup. It is those groups quietly working in the background that saved the day.

The moral of this story is that government bureaucracy ALWAYS bogs down the system, is more expensive, and accomplishes less than private, altruistically motivated Volunteers—real people with real desire to alleviate suffering, neglect, poverty, and illiteracy, who step up to serve by their own free will, without any expectation of financial or educational benefits.

To be fair, HR1388 is not a mandatory National Service, but it is the first step towards training the minds of the American people that centralized “volunteer” service, organized by the State, is a Duty of the Citizen. Legislation has been in the work for years to mandate two years of National Service, male and female, between the ages of 18 and 24, either in the military or as a civilian, to serve at the discretion of the President of the United States. Other countries do it, we should to, seems to be the mantra of supporters of this legislation. Since when is it the American Way to do what everyone else does, especially when it involves the concept of liberty and the free exercise of will?

But is it Constitutional?
First, nowhere in the Constitution can be found the term “National Service”. Then there is the small matter of the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which declares,
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”
According to this Amendment, Mandatory National Service is nothing more than Involuntary Servitude under the name of “Volunteerism”, unless the “volunteers” are convicted criminals. It also says that Congress has the power to “enforce” the prohibition against involuntary servitude, but the people have not granted Congress the power to “enact” involuntary servitude, mindful of the fact that “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” are equally prohibited.

So if Mandatory Service is Involuntary Servitude, how do we staff our Military Force?
The Founding Fathers understood that it is every citizen’s duty to defend his homeland and understood that every state had its own militia for that purpose, a militia in which every able bodied male was required to participate. They founders wisely set forth the principle that those militias could only be called forth to National Service through a provision of Congress, not directly under the President's control nor at his will. The States’ Militia could only be used for limited defined purposes, none of which included foreign adventures or nation building. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states, in part, that Congress shall have the power to:
“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;”This is another wise "Check and Balance" of the Founding Fathers.

The military capacity is there all the time in the form of the militias of the several states, but is not in "actual service" until called upon. Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, in part,

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
When called upon, the states--their legislatures, their governor and the officers of their militia--have the opportunity to "veto" the federal government's call, and determine for the people of their State if they believe that military action is justified, and if they will participate. If the federal government wants a large military, they need to make sure the use of that military is justified enough so that they can get "volunteers" for an all volunteer military. If the call to arms is justified to defend the homeland, it can be safely assumed that a 50-Million or 100-Million man army of able bodied males will stand up to the task. If the federal government is engaging in foreign adventurism and nation building, then "We the People" can veto it by not showing up for "actual service".

The Give Act-H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, aka The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws, passed 26 March 2009.

This article is a collaborative work by Karen Murray and Bob Peck.

Yeah it's unconstitutional. It violates the 13th Amendment. If Obama were more than just 10% African he would know that that and he were an actual American citizen.