I might as well take the points in order:

>>Citizenship should never require this type of service.

Perhaps, but it's preferable to a draft, which removes the element of choice entirely.

>>Longer term for 'civilian service' as if that is somehow less important than military service?

No, as if it were somehow less *dangerous* than military service. If serving in the army is more likely to result in death or serious injury, it makes sense to require a shorter period.

>>If someone is disabled do they automatically get a deferment? and get to be a citizen anyway? Hmmm let's wait and see how many new deferments/disabilites enter into this when suddenly rich kids have to serve.

No deferments, 4F or otherwise, since service isn't mandatory or limited to kids just out of high school in good health. If Stephen Hawking could teach from a wheelchair while suffering from ALS, surely someone with sufficient intelligence and motivation could serve this country in some capacity if they really wanted to.

>>And voting should hinge on this? Not one of Heinlein's better ideas. That would require a Constitutional ammendment and will never fly.

Yes, it would require a constitutional amendment, and while it may have flaws, it is a fairer system than selective service. Drafting young men too poor to go to college, and whose only reward is to get shot at in a foreign country, is worse than allowing them some choice in the matter, and some benefit for serving.

And as a constitutional amendment, it could fill the anchor-baby loophole and remove the congressional urge for amnesty, since immigrants would have the same opportunity to earn citizenship as those born on our soil.