You have to sign up for "Selective Service" so that, if suddenly the US government did want to conscript all young men, they have a record of who's eligible. Only men are required (and are even allowed) to sign up for Selective Service.
As you can imagine, some politicians do everything they can to maintain the status quo, while others try to get the legislation banned by the Supreme Court.
can you talk abut why "if they did want to conscript all young men" it means that they are subject to involuntary draft currently? What I mean is that it would take a positive action to instate a draft, right?
Would it be harder legally to "want to conscript all people (men and women)"? What I mean is even though women are not registered for selective service, if you were to "enable" conscription couldn't you just also require that they register? If this is the case isn't it fair to say instead of "men are subject to involuntary draft" it is more accurate to say "men are one record-keeping action closer to an involuntary draft"?
If there's a bigger difference I'd like to understand that difference.
As you can imagine, some politicians do everything they can to maintain the status quo, while others try to get the legislation banned by the Supreme Court.