On March 18th with the support of many House Democrats, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Resolution 1388 which basically described a new policy of the Obama administration. As of now, the federal government will be investigate and then initiate a mandatory civilian service obligation for all 18-25 year old Americans. These young men and women will spend three months training in civilian defense and safety and thus will be prepared in the case of a natural disaster or military attack on the United States. It seems that the administration hopes that this requirement will foster unity among Americans of all socio-economic backgrounds and will also help to prepare the nation for future emergencies.

Now we get to the point where I rip this argument apart. For one, I must say that if this resolution is initiated in the near future, I will be one of the first young Americans affected by mandatory service. I am going to make it very clear that I am a supporter of President Obama and have been for the last year. However, if the President supports this measure I will be forced to reevaluate what, if any, loyalty I have to the Democratic Party. While I am completely for volunteer service especially if done by the younger generation, I do not agree with any argument that attempts to make such service obligatory. In my mind, and in the minds of most of my fellow high schoolers, volunteer service is something that is, well, initiated by a personal feeling of duty and not by a Congressman's signature. Given the sweeping reform of this resolution, I would like to call to mind the failures of the federal government previously to implement obligatory service requirements in the last 50 years. Take for instance, Vietnam's massive draft riots. Or, one may even travel back to the Civil War when lower-class industrial workers protested conscription requirements. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE! WE DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED INTO SERVICE! HAVE YOU ALL SERVED POMPOUS CONGRESSMEN/WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF?! Personally, I can say with conviction that, if I was able to act independently of my family unit, I would be sure to leave the country if this measure is enacted. My idea of the United States as a nation committed to personal rights and freedoms, I must ask whether this action is even directly supported by the U.S. Constitution. Secondly, I'd like to point out that apparently the United States Congress does not feel that those over 25 years old do not need this training? What, do they already know how to defend the nation/protect neighbors? This entire act sets out to make the youngest generation the complete caretakers of everyone else. This is a role that we do not need to take on solely by ourselves, nor one that we have chosen. The youth of this nation, a demographic facing more difficulties than those of the last generation and inheriting the massive mistakes of their parents, do not deserve such treatment. If they had a proper voice in this process, I am sure that this resolution would never have made it out of committee.