What would a constitutional military look like?

poncho · Jan 21, 2014

A Constitutional Military would call for far more than just an end of our overseas military bases.

A standing peacetime Army is unconstitutional, our Founding Fathers abhorred them and warned us not to keep them.

From Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution -

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy”

The Founders made a clear distinction there between an Army to be called up when needed and a full time Navy.

“I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them.” –Thomas Jefferson

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” – James Madison, Father of the Constitution

So just what would a Constitutional military look like?

Read more: http://benswann.com/what-would-a-constitutional-military-look-like/#ixzz2r43ZzWS5

thisnumbersdisconnected · Jan 21, 2014

Part 1 of reply

poncho said: ↑

A standing peacetime Army is unconstitutional
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. As usual, a clueless post not based in actual fact.

poncho said: ↑

... our Founding Fathers abhorred them and warned us not to keep them.

From Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution -

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy”

The Founders made a clear distinction there between an Army to be called up when needed and a full time Navy.
Click to expand...

None whatsoever. The Army Clause

During the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them."

Nonetheless, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike expressed concerns about a standing army, as opposed to a navy or the militia. Accordingly, this is the only clause related to military affairs that includes a time limit on appropriations. The appropriations power of Congress is a very powerful tool, and one that the Framers saw as particularly necessary in the case of a standing army. Indeed, some individuals argued that army appropriations should be made on a yearly basis. During the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry raised precisely this point. Roger Sherman replied that the appropriations were permitted, not required, for two years. The problem, he said, was that in a time of emergency, Congress might not be in session when an annual army appropriation was needed.

Since the time of the Constitution, legal developments based on the clause have been legislatively driven, and barely the subject of judicial interpretation. With the establishment of a Department of Defense in 1947, Army appropriations have been subsumed by a single department-wide appropriation that includes the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force (established in 1947), as well as other agencies of the department. Despite periodic congressional efforts to move to a two-year appropriations cycle, the annual appropriations for the military are the rule, although not for the reasons that animated Elbridge Gerry during the Constitutional Convention. In addition, the Armed Services Committees of Congress have taken on the responsibility of authorizing almost all aspects of the defense budget as well as appropriating the funds for the services.

The character of the United States Army has changed significantly since the constitutional period in two fundamental ways. The first was its way of mobilizing. The second was its orientation and purpose.

With respect to wartime mobilization, Hamilton and later John C. Calhoun envisioned the United States Army as an "expansible" force. A small peacetime establishment would serve as the foundation for a greatly expanded force in times of emergency. The emergency ended, the citizen-soldiers would demobilize and return to their civilian occupations. With modifications, this was essentially the model for mobilization from the Mexican War through World War II. During the Cold War, the United States for the first time in its history maintained a large military establishment during peacetime. Even so, the fact that soldiers were drafted meant that citizen-soldiers continued to be the foundation of the Army. But with the end of the draft in 1973, the citizen-soldier was superseded by the long-term professional.

The draft, of course, has been a controversial issue. Although compulsory military service can be traced to the colonial and revolutionary period in America, it usually involved the states obligating service in the militia. The United States did not have a national draft until the Civil War, and did not resort to a peacetime draft until 1940. Opponents of a draft have used a number of constitutional arguments in support of their position. The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that a draft is constitutional. This includes a draft during peacetime and the power to dispatch draftees overseas. Nor does a draft intrude on the state's right to maintain a militia. Selective Draft Law Cases (1918). An example of the Court's reasoning is found in Holmes v. United States (1968): "the power of Congress to raise armies and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiencies, is not limited by the Thirteenth Amendment or the absence of a military emergency." Nonetheless, the Court has, for some time now, been broadening exemptions to the draft, such as those with conscientious objections to war.
Click to expand...

thisnumbersdisconnected · Jan 21, 2014

Part 2 of reply

poncho said: ↑

“I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them.” –Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

That's an out-of-context quote. It leaves out the fact that Jefferson was not addressing the need for a standing military, but budgetary concerns. The entire quote is part of his "profession of political faith" in the function and goodness of the United States government, and the entire paragraph reads thusly:

I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and by increasing for every device the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing. I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the section you quoted changes dramatically in light of the actual context, which your website tried to hide by only giving a partial quote. The same is true of your Madison quote:

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” – James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Click to expand...

Here is what was actually written, and note that 1) this is not an actual quote of Madison but the minutes of the Federal Convention summarizing what Madison said, and 2) the concern is not against a federally maintained peacetime military, but that the states themselves would resort to standing armies that would endanger the collective government, thus making Madison's comments supportive of a federal standing army:

He entreated the gentlemen representing the small States to renounce a principle wch. was confessedly unjust, which cd. never be admitted, & [FN7] if admitted must infuse mortality into a Constitution which we wished to last forever. He prayed them to ponder well the consequences of suffering the Confederacy to go to pieces. It had been sd. that the want of energy in the large states wd. be a security to the small. It was forgotten that this want of energy proceeded from the supposed security of the States agst. all external danger. Let each state depend on itself for its security, & let apprehensions arise arise of danger, from distant powers or from neighbouring States, & the languishing condition of all the States, large as well as small, wd. soon be transformed into vigorous & high toned Govts. His great fear was that their Govts. wd. then have too much energy, that these [FN8] might not only be formidable in the large to the small States, but fatal to the internal liberty of all. The same causes which have rendered the old world the Theatre of incessant wars, & have banished liberty from the face of it, wd. soon produce the same effects here. The weakness & jealousy of the small States wd. quickly introduce some regular military force agst. sudden danger from their powerful neighbours. The example wd. be followed by others, and wd. soon become universal. In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe cd. maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger cd. tame the people to the domestic yoke. The insular situation of G. Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe. It has rendered less defence necessary, and admitted a kind of defence wch. cd. not be used for the purpose of oppression. -These consequences he conceived ought to be apprehended whether the States should run into a total separation from each other, or shd. enter into partial confederacies. Either event wd. be truly deplorable; & those who might be accessary to either, could never be forgiven by their Country, nor by themselves.
Click to expand...

poncho said: ↑

So just what would a Constitutional military look like?
Click to expand...

Just like it does, because what we have is constitutional, despite your disingenuous efforts to prove otherwise.

poncho · Jan 21, 2014

I'm sure everyone here already knows that the only opinions worth mentioning come from the neocons and Saudi Faux Snews but thanks for reminding us again just the same.

I can see where defending the United States against invasion is constitutional. I might even agree that having a standing army in this day and age is a good idea.

But I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why we need an imperial standing army that acts on the advice and insistence of internationalist corporate backed "policy planners" such as the CFR and all the other bankster controlled "think tanks".

Earth Wind and Fire · Jan 21, 2014

poncho said: ↑

I'm sure everyone here already knows that the only opinions worth mentioning come from the neocons and Saudi Faux Snews but thanks for reminding us again just the same.
Click to expand...

What do ya mean Saudi?

poncho · Jan 21, 2014

Saudis Influencing Fox News

Earth said: ↑

What do ya mean Saudi?
Click to expand...

It is of the utmost importance to begin to notice, to scrutinize and assess what Fox covers and -- more important -- what it doesn't and why.

As I reconsidered the Murdoch-Alwaleed relationship, I was struck anew not only by the 7 percent of News Corp. that Alwaleed owns, but also by the 18.97 percent of Rotana, Alawaleed's Arabic media group, that Murdoch owns. I discovered that just as Murdoch-Alwaleed holdings include Fox, Alwaleed-Murdoch holdings include Al Risala, a 24/7 religious station run by a Kuwaiti Muslim Brother named Tareq al-Suwaidon. Al-Suwaidan, who doubles as a popular on-air host at Al Risala, is not just any Muslim Brother, either. He is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in US history, the Holy Land Foundation trial. That means the US government believes Al-Suwaidon, too, was involved in fund-raising for Hamas. That means that Murdoch and Alwaleed's cable stable includes O'Reilly, Doocey and Al-Suwaidon, aka, Mr. Hamas.

That's not the only appalling connection the Saudi association brings to News Corp. On the advisory board of Al Risala is Abdullah Omar Naseef, whose Rabita Trust has been designated by the US Treasury as an Al Qaeda financier (see photo).The structural parallels may be somewhat imperfect but they are still illustrative: Just as Alwaleed has a business connection to News Corp. board member Roger Ailes, Murdoch has a business connection to Al Risala board member and al Qaeda financier Naseef.

That's reality.

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/interview-diana-west-saudi-influence-fox-news

Sean Hannity: Al-Waleed's statement was "such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either." On the October 22, 2001, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes (accessed via Nexis), Sean Hannity said, "[T]his is a man that blames the United States and their policies for the attack that took place on September 11th. That is such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either, and I applaud what Mayor Giuliani did. It showed a lot of guts and character."

Hannity: "This is a bad guy. Rudy was right to decline the money." On the December 13, 2005, edition of Hannity & Colmes (accessed via Nexis), while discussing a grant Al-Waleed gave Georgetown and Harvard universities, Hannity said: "This is a bad guy. Rudy was right to decline the money. Why would these universities take money from him?"
Click to expand...

Evidently Sean no longer thinks taking money from this guy is such a bad idea now that Prince Al Waleed is his boss.

Now comes the part where TND tells us that because Snews Corp Inc. and the other 5 mega consolidated corporate news networks aren't reporting on this cozy relationship between Rupert Murdoch and the Sunni terrorist sponsoring (see Libya and Syria for details) Saudi monarchy it doesn't really matter.

He'll tell us that anyone that disagrees with him and his neocon counterparts and the military security media complex are traitors or nutballs and true to neocon form reciting Joesph Goebbels favorite war propaganda he'll tell us if we don't make war on everyone the Saudis want us to make war on "Al Qaeda" will get us.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=91053

Earth Wind and Fire · Jan 21, 2014

poncho said: ↑

It is of the utmost importance to begin to notice, to scrutinize and assess what Fox covers and -- more important -- what it doesn't and why.

As I reconsidered the Murdoch-Alwaleed relationship, I was struck anew not only by the 7 percent of News Corp. that Alwaleed owns, but also by the 18.97 percent of Rotana, Alawaleed's Arabic media group, that Murdoch owns. I discovered that just as Murdoch-Alwaleed holdings include Fox, Alwaleed-Murdoch holdings include Al Risala, a 24/7 religious station run by a Kuwaiti Muslim Brother named Tareq al-Suwaidon. Al-Suwaidan, who doubles as a popular on-air host at Al Risala, is not just any Muslim Brother, either. He is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in US history, the Holy Land Foundation trial. That means the US government believes Al-Suwaidon, too, was involved in fund-raising for Hamas. That means that Murdoch and Alwaleed's cable stable includes O'Reilly, Doocey and Al-Suwaidon, aka, Mr. Hamas.

That's not the only appalling connection the Saudi association brings to News Corp. On the advisory board of Al Risala is Abdullah Omar Naseef, whose Rabita Trust has been designated by the US Treasury as an Al Qaeda financier (see photo).The structural parallels may be somewhat imperfect but they are still illustrative: Just as Alwaleed has a business connection to News Corp. board member Roger Ailes, Murdoch has a business connection to Al Risala board member and al Qaeda financier Naseef.

That's reality.

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/interview-diana-west-saudi-influence-fox-news

Evidently Sean no longer thinks taking money from this guy is such a bad idea now that Prince Al Waleed is his boss.

Now comes the part where TND tells us that because Snews Corp Inc. and the other 5 mega consolidated corporate news networks aren't reporting on this cozy relationship between Rupert Murdoch and the Sunni terrorist sponsoring (see Libya and Syria for details) Saudi monarchy it doesn't really matter.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=91053
Click to expand...

So why is Charles Krauthammer working for Fox? He is a smart guy & he is a Jew who indicated he feels strongly that .....ahhhh you know what I am driving at.

What would a constitutional military look like?

poncho Well-Known Member

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

poncho Well-Known Member

Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

What would a constitutional military look like?

poncho Well-Known Member

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

poncho Well-Known Member

Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member Site Supporter

poncho Well-Known Member

Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
Site Supporter