Perhaps, under the right circumstances, Justice Joseph Story could lead the court in that direction (at least regarding a peacetime draft).
On the Second Amendment Story wrote:
The militia is the natural defence [sic] of a free country against sudden foreign invasions domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace both from the enormous expenses with which they are attended and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government or trample upon the rights of the people. (from Wikipedia)
As Hamilton points out in Federalist No. 24, even the Articles of Confederation did not contain a ban on standing armies, nor did the state constitutions: "Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the two which contain the interdiction in these words: 'As standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, THEY OUGHT NOT to be kept up.' This is, in truth, rather a CAUTION than a PROHIBITION. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Maryland have, in each of their bills of rights, a clause to this effect: 'Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE'; which is a formal admission of the authority of the Legislature. New York has no bills of rights, and her constitution says not a word about the matter. No bills of rights appear annexed to the constitutions of the other States, except the foregoing, and their constitutions are equally silent. I am told, however that one or two States have bills of rights which do not appear in this collection; but that those also recognize the right of the legislative authority in this respect."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed24.asp#1
Story's discussion is simply in the tradition of warning about the dangers of standing armies (and the utility of militias in avoiding them) which is far different from an actual ban. It is most unlikely that someone as nationalist as Story (and the Marshall Court) would want to risk the nation's security with any such prohibition. This is especially so, since the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years..."