Initiative action in Northern California

U.S. military recruiting minors?

AMY GOODMAN: Two Northern California towns are finding themselves in a showdown with the Pentagon over a ban on recruiting minors for the military. Last November, residents of Eureka and Arcata passed a ballot initiative known as the Youth Protection Act. The measure bars the U.S. government from trying to enlist youths under the age of eighteen in any branch of the U.S. armed forces.

But just days after the laws went into effect, the Justice Department filed a suit seeking to overturn them. The Justice Department’s civil action says the initiatives are invalid because they conflict with federal law. Both towns are refusing to cave. They’ve hired lawyers, filed counter-claims challenging the federal government’s action...

AMY GOODMAN: When did you pass this, David?

DAVID MESERVE: We passed it last November as a ballot initiative.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain exactly what it says.

DAVID MESERVE: Well, what it actually says is that no person who is employed by or an agent of the United States government shall, within the city limits of Arcata, recruit, initiate contact with for the purpose of recruiting, or promote the future enlistment of anyone under the age of eighteen...

AMY GOODMAN: What was the vote in Eureka and Arcata?

DAVID MESERVE: Well, in Arcata, it passed by 73 percent margin, and in Eureka, by 57 percent... The really exciting thing was it passing in Eureka, which is much more of a kind of working-class town, logging, fishing, etc... All we were really saying is that it’s inappropriate to recruit kids into the military. And apparently that message rang true for the people of Eureka..

AMY GOODMAN: We tried to have a representative from the Justice Department on the show today, but they did not get back to us. Sharon Adams, explain the significance of these two referendum that have been passed by these towns and the Justice Department taking them on.

SHARON ADAMS: Well, the Justice Department is saying that they violate the Supremacy Clause, as David said. And—

AMY GOODMAN: And explain exactly what that is.

SHARON ADAMS: The Supremacy Clause is an article in the Constitution that says that the laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land, but it also includes in there the treaties that the United States has signed. So, one of our arguments is that there’s a protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. That’s a treaty that the United States has signed. And in that treaty, it specifically discusses recruiting. And it specifically says, as far as the United States is concerned, that the United States will not recruit under the age of seventeen. And what we see over and over is that they are actually recruiting under the age of seventeen. So what we are saying is that there is no violation of the Supremacy Clause. What we’re saying is that the Supremacy Clause—the laws of the United States and this protocol are actually in—they’re in accord. And what’s happening is that the way that the recruiting is actually happening is not in accord with the existing laws in the United States and with the treaties.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what are you going to do now, David Meserve? You used to serve on the city council, but these laws are now not in effect.

DAVID MESERVE: Well, we’re moving ahead to defend them, and we’re also hoping that other cities want to follow suit. We’re encouraging other cities to think about ballot initiatives like this in the future, because it is a way for people to speak out from a grassroots level. And we’re also asking that they hold back a little bit and take a look at how the case turns out and whether there are any changes that would be advised for cities who will be doing this in the future, because we think it’s really important for cities and communities to be able to speak out and say that we believe that it’s wrong to recruit kids, and we believe that we have the power of the law on our side, as well as just the power of the right of what should be.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about the federal government saying it trumps what you want in your local town?

DAVID MESERVE: Well, we don’t think that the federal government does trump it, both because of the optional protocol and also because of the Ninth Amendment. And under the Ninth Amendment, there is the right to privacy, and we believe that intrinsic in that is the right to protect children from being approached by recruiters.