The US Army

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Salty, Aug 30, 2014.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,095
    Likes Received:
    218
    Article I, Section 8 of the COTUS says in part:
    "...To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;..."

    Does this mean that a standing US Army is Unconstitutional?

    In 1783 Major John Doughty was appointed the Army's senior ranking officer following the decision to discharge from the army of all but eighty (80) men.

    Section 8 also states:
    "...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;..."

    Therefore should the military of the US be in the hands of the National Guard?
     
  2. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Constitutional or not, every camp has to have a guard posted, day and night. That is one of the first things a recruit learns: how to do guard post.

    We got caught sleeping at Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941. One account is the radar guys reported to the OD who made some seriously flawed decisions, probably not alone.

    Some died in bed, some in the mess hall, some on the golf course.

    We got caught on 9-11, even showed the terrorists how to fly the planes.

    History is telling us something. Are we listening?

    The problem is not a standing Army but rather incompetent bureaucracy--civilian and military. We need a standing Army.

    Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

    Bro. James
     
    #2 Bro. James, Aug 30, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2014
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,095
    Likes Received:
    218

    You did not answer the question. Now you did give some reasons for being prepared.

    So:
    1) Does The National Guard should be the watchmen
    and/or
    2) Does the Constitution need to be changed?
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,148
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    A permanent party standing army is unconstitutional. Such an army was one of the greatest fears of the founding fathers. And rightly so. The present military is being equipped and trained in "urban warfare." Who do we expect to use that training against? Uh, us?

    Look at the aftermath of Katrina. Uniformed military went from house to house demanding entry (without warrants) and confiscating all legally owned firearms. And, of course, that resulted in law abiding citizens not being able to defend themselves from one of the most corrupt police departments in the country. (Google the Danziger Bridge shootings.)

    The founders envisioned a system similar to Switzerland. The people comprise the well-known militia element and a small professional element, or regular army. Under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old.

    The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home.

    Compulsory military service is mandatory for all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily. Males usually receive initial orders at the age of 18 for military conscription eligibility screening. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable.

    Annually, approximately 20,000 persons are trained in basic training for a duration from 18 to 21 weeks.

    I would not object to a permanent corps of officers and senior NCOs not to exceed 5% of the total number of persons fit and available for military service.

    We presently have 2.5 million persons in military uniforms. The 5% permanent party requirement would reduce that to 125,000.

    If we would stay and home and mind our own business and stop trying to police the whole world we might have the resources to solve some of our current problems.

    If we return to the "Minute Man" system of the founders, every able bodied man between 18 and 45 would be part of the organized militia, and train on a regular schedule, and all others (especially men like me, combat vets who are over 45 years of age) would be part of the unorganized militia who, in the event of threat from within or without, would organize themselves around an elected officer corps to supplement and reinforce the organized militia.

    $700 billion dollars every year to support a standing military is idiotic! Cutting that by 75% would go a long way toward fixing the outpouring of $1.3 trillion annually for Social Security. (And don't get me started on Social Security!)
     
  5. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    I know nothing of the Law, but the OP quote seems to say you cannot appropriate money for more than two years to fund a standing army. But if a defense appropriation bill is passed and signed into law, every two years, then a continuously funded standing army would be constitutional. Or at least that could be how the SCOTUS could read it.

    Now, does a CR (continuing resolution) pass muster? I would think not, but again, I thought the draft was unconstitutional because the constitution forbids involuntary servitude. No matter, as I had to guard the motor pool in a military manner. :)
     
    #5 Van, Aug 30, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2014
  6. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Sarcasm:Let's stand down the standing army, rebuild the ready reserve, and initiate a scouts and drones corp with the controls in the oval office--before ISIS gets in the camp (They are probably already in the camp.)

    The problem with ready reserve is they are undertrained and underfunded. When the flag goes up the ones who pencil whipped the PT found out they were unfit for combat. It takes more than one weekend a month to maintain combat readiness.

    Now that the enemy is in the camp, we probably need more militia types, not vigilantes. There are a lot of us who can still load and lock but we have trouble getting our wheel chairs up the ramparts.

    In 1776 we could not afford regulars or irregulars. Today we still cannot afford them. We have been defending our constitution with red ink for many generations. The tax base continues to erode. Now what?

    Is a standing army constitutional? That is debatable. In the meantime, let us improve our readiness. ISIS is rolling if we are ready or not.

    Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

    Bro. James
     
  7. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,095
    Likes Received:
    218
    Looks like you found a good loophole

    Good question


    SCOTUS has ruled the Draft is Constitutional
     
  8. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    I disagree. It's actually VERY constitutional. "To raise and support.." The checks and balances is the 2 year appropriations. This is set in place to keep the Army subservient to Congress.
    Wrongly stated. It was the fear of the anti-federalist founding fathers that a Standing Army would be under the power of one man. This is why the military is underneath congress.
    The current doctrine of urban warfare and civil disturbances is merely an update of pre-WW2 doctrine. People always seem to point out that the military is training to quell civil unrest domestically. Well, they've been training that way for nearly 80 years. It's not some plot, it's not some conspiracy.

    I have to point out that it was NOT military personnel who issued this order. It was a police superintendent. Also, that set a firm precedent into federal law (Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006) that disallowed this in the future. So it actually accomplished some good. (Although, it's sad that it had to become law, since it as a freedom we already had.)

    Now, I don't have any hard data on this, as to my knowledge there is none. But, let me say from personal experience that the National Guard is a joke. Anytime I've dealt with them in a combat zone, they were roughly 3x as likely to die as active duty. I have heard of, but never seen a disciplined NG unit. And I've seen quite a few.

    The NG unit that replaced us in AG had a stock boy from GameXchange as their commanding officer. Simply put, the NG does not receive enough training, and are not "military minded" enough to handle what the AD soldiers do.
     
  9. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    No where in the US Constitution will you find any mention of any branch of the US government, or of any branch of any state's/commonwealth's government(s) being given the authority to raise and/or support an air force of any kind and/or for any length of time.

    I suppose that one could conclude that, therefore, any full-time or part-time air force that ever has or ever will operate under the aegis of any type of government that exists in the US is also unconstitutional.

    One reason why the framers of our US Constitution didn't include any mention of an air force was that probably none of the framers had ever conceived of something such as an air force.

    It was only about 150 or so years ago that anything remotely similar to an air force existed---which was about 73 years after the US Constitution was ratified.

    Yes, I suppose a person could use that rather strained form of logic to come to the conclusion that an military-style of air force is unconstitutional, but I am not one of those people.

    The OP referenced Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution wherein you will not find a single word pertaining to an air force, so, I guess I violated the US Constitution when I enlisted in the USAF some 50 years ago.

    Maybe I should run away and hide.....Who knows....."Big Brother" might come looking for this here violator of our Constitution!!! .....ya think??? :smilewinkgrin:
     

Share This Page

Loading...