Disbanning the Military

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, Apr 30, 2007.

  1. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joseph Story- Justice of the Supreme Court 1811-1845


    In his Exposition of The Consitution of the United States he says in reference to the Army:


    "But inasmuch as the power to raise armies may be perverted in times of peace to improper purposes, a restriction is imposed upon the grant of appropriations by Congress for the maintenance of them. So that, at furthest, every two years, the propriety of retaining an existing army must regularly come before the Representatives of the people in Congress for consideration; and if no approriation is made, the army is necessarily disbanded. Thus, the army may, at any time within two years, be in effect dissolved, by a majority of Congress, without the consent of the President, by a simple refusal to grant supplies. "


    Since this has come up in Congress and the President will veto it, is it appropriate fro the President to insist on the funding of the war inlight of Justice Story's Exposition?
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do we remember that since 1964 human beans can
    kill all human life on earth? We human beans can do anthing
    mentioned bad in the Revelation and related prophecies
    (they can even 'simulate' the rapture by blowing up
    a couple Billion people).

    In the middle of the 19th Century (1801-1900), Joseph
    Story was not aware that starting about 1964 people
    would be able to destroy themselves (it only takes about
    an hour - fortunately life loving Americans and live loving Russions
    largely control this capibility)
     
  3. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    2Tim,

    Sure it is. In our political system, both sides must make a calculation as to whether voters will be with them in the end. While I disagree with many here who argue that the Constitution requires a declaration of war before a President can commit troops to combat, it is certainly true that the President's power is not and should not be unlimited. If Congress feels strongly enough that the President is out of line, I don't believe that they have the Constitutional power to set timetables for withdrawal or such but they have the power of the purse and they can put our money where their mouth is by defunding a war. In the case of the present war, I think that is a mistake, and I think that Congressional Democrats have weighed the political consequences and are hesitant to take that stance. Some argue that Congress should not be in the position to defund a war while troops are in combat but if they feel strongly enough about it it is their duty to pull the funding plug; the Constitution does give them that power; trying to actually run the war, however, is outside their prerogative. In the present case I think they are just playing political games in hopes that they can build up opposition to the war through the media
     
  4. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    He has the right to veto a funding bill that has junk like the minimum wage fiasco in it.

    They have the right to cut off funding.

    Ironically, he has told them that he would sign the minimum wage bill if they sent it to him, but they are more interested in playing politics. It has no business in the funding bill, but they can say, "See! He hate poor people!" (I wonder why the MSM isn't proclaiming that he has said he would sign it if they sent it to him?)

    However, they don't want to end the war because that would be disastrous, both for us as a society and them politically. But, they can prance about and say, "I say! I say!" and never really say (or do) anything.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, continuing this police action in Iraq is disastrous for us as a society - we are going broke borrowing the money from China to pay for it and it is not making us one iota safer within our own borders.
     
  6. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I partially agree with you.

    Since we did not send enough troops in the first place, it is turning into something less than it should be, although I would not quite call it disastrous. Not yet, at least.

    However, pulling out now, would be disastrous, no matter what, and I think much more disastrous than even following the current path.
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    We can't financially afford to stay in Iraq for another ten years and our army can't sustain the manpower assignment, unless the American people are willing to see a huge increase in their federal taxes(at a $1000 per household per year) and are willing to institute a draft to provide the necessary manpower. I know that I am not and I doubt that most Americans are.
     
  8. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be willing to take all the money we throw away into the welfare pit into the military. Add in all the other programs that do nothing but support those who choose not to provide for themselves.

    I would also be willing to let them pay for it. They have oil.

    You know, we went through a safety class earlier in the year (I drive a bus), and there are some scenarios such as, "Things have been set into motion in such a way that you are going to crash..." (Doesn't matter whose fault it is.)

    One thing they teach you is to control the crash, to the best of your ability, so that it limits the damage and danger. (No reason to go into the details here.)

    But, I think that Iraq is that way now. If we had sent in enough troops, it would be moot. But, we didn't.

    We are going to crash.

    How do we control the danger and the damage?

    If we pull out now, that would be the worst of all scenarios.

    If we pull out on an artificial time scale, that would be second worst. Both would be a victory for terrorists, and simply embolden them, and plummet the Middle East into an anarchy that would be resolved only by the return of the Lord. (Which is going to happen, but I think we have the responsibility to at least try...)

    I think the best course is to actually try to win. More troops. Kill more bad guys.

    Then, pull out, when the time is appropriate.
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Constitution authorized a standing navy but not army. Doesn't matter because we are not governed by the constitution but by case law and secret executive orders.
     
  10. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    But, a standing army was not prohibited, and later law established it.

    The Constitution is more about limiting the power of the Fed than giving it power, but the authorization for a standing navy was to protect the borders.

    So, the Constitution specifically establishes a standing navy, but does not prohibit a standing army.

    However, it is important to remember that the Army may not be actively deployed on US territory, unless we are militarily invaded. There's no such prohibition against the Navy and the Coast Guard.
     
  11. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    Exactly that is the purpose of the militias.
     
  12. AF Guy N Paradise

    AF Guy N Paradise
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,080
    Likes Received:
    1
    I currently work and oversee Manpower in the AF and we are going through more and more cuts all the time as well.

    And todays Air Force is much different than the one I joined and even the one that was around 5 years ago. We now deploy much more and longer and in many cases and missions we are right alongside with the Army. The basic training is harder and longer now and we have truly adapted the warrior mentality in todays AF.

    I think I am about ready to punch...
     
  13. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    And It costs al-qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents little of nothing to continue what they are doing. With an ample supply of suicide bombers and very little need for expensive military machinery I'm just a guessin that this war could continue till the end of time or until America goes bust. This wasn't a very well planned war, the war on terror, it is a whole lot eaisier to battle countries than it is to battle the invisible idealisms of Terrorism.
     

Share This Page

Loading...