Discussion in 'Military' started by CSM, Jun 14, 2007.
Happy birthday to the US Army and all you Army vets out there.
Dittos! Thank you army!
Thank you Army, and thank you to one of its vets, my hubby!
However, our permanent army is unconstitutional, imho.
The constitution clearly states that our federal government can not fund a standing army more than 2 years per time...called up for war....i believe war is implied. Instead we have a permanent army, airforce, marines, etc...
We are not suppose to have a standing, permanent army, ( in my opinion to protect us citizens from having an over reaching gvt that pursues wars of choice, VS WARS OF SELF DEFENSE AND NECESSITY and to protect us from the useless spending on the Military industrial Complex which they could forsee.)
We spit on our own constitution and our forfather's daily, by having a permanent Army imo.
thanks Army and the people who ARE the army!
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
I think they mena the money has to come up for vote every two years which would mean the congress can redirect the Army if the people so wish.
A Navy but no Army?
I think they at the time felt the Navy was to protect our shores.
There is no mention of Air force for obvious reasons so no restriction but we need that to protect our borders.
There is just too many ways to interpitate the constitution which without trying to determine what kind of intent they were trying to achieve with the laws you can take away from it interpitations which will tear us apart.
We are at a fragile stage in this democracy where the constitution is stretching and bending to try and fit a time which its founders could not have possibly immagined.
Bush has made this even more problematic with his affront on our traditions unpartisan service.
This is a perfect storm of wrong president at the wrong time.
The next president is going to be very important to this process.
Im affraid we may have the wrong Scotus also.
The military is NOT unconstitutional. It meets the requirments set forth under the Constitution in that it is only funded for a maximum 2 years at a time. Congress MUST pass new funding every 2 years at a minimum and generally every year.
While it is assumed the Military will continue on indefinately, it is still temperary and only serves at the pleasure of Congress.
The Term Army is assumed correctly to mean an ARMED Military Force, that includes all 4 military branches and any future branch that would be an armed military force.
congress can not fund anything, any project, longer than 2 years for the army is how i read it rgs?
the navy they can fund all they want, the state malitias, (today's national guard) they can fund all they want.... is how it reads to me?
Not sure, I do know the Navy is funded exactly like the Army and Airforce and marine Corps. Every year, 2 at the most.
I would argue that since the National Guard is considered an integral part of the Army it should be funded by FEDERAL money the same way. If the States are paying, then yes they do not have to follow the requirement.
As for Militia, the Guard is just a federalized force, the Constitution is clear, each State can maintain more troops that are NOT available for Federal Duty, they just chose not to. So while the Guard may be "militia" it is not the only militia allowed.
Thank you army and all vets, god bless you
Happy Birthday to all you Army doggies.
Separate names with a comma.