Text 13162, 56 rader
Skriven 2008-03-18 06:46:02 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
  Kommentar till text 13061 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
Ärende: Constitution
====================
Replying to a message of Jeff Bowman to Bob Ackley:

 A>>> JB> I personally would support tax for both the military as well as
 A>>> JB> healthcare. Unlike the average Democratic position on the issue,
 A>>> I JB> lean more towards keeping a decent-sized military intact.  You
 A>>> never JB> know when you might need it to defend the country or an
 A>>> ally.

 BA>> You do know that a permanent standing army is unConstitutional, do
 BA>> you not?

 BA>> United States Constitution, Article I, Section VIII, funding for the
 BA>> army is limited to two years (that limitation does not apply to the
 BA>> navy and, of course, the air force didn't exist in 1787). The fact
 BA>> that the army has been re-funded every two years for over 200 years
 BA>> does not deny the statement that a permanent standing army is
 BA>> unConstitutional.

 JB> I've never actually studied the Constitution to any degree which would
 JB> allow me to understand the technical and legal meanings behind all of
 JB> it, but my interpretation of that section is that they simply can't
 JB> raise money for more than two years at a time.  Appropriating it
 JB> every year or every couple years seems it would still be legal.

 JB> I wouldn't think anyone who wrote the Constitution would expect us to
 JB> remain defenseless.

They didn't.  In 1787 the militia consisted of just about all the men in the
country,
and they were expected to repeat what they did in 1775 if it became necessary
again.
The system didn't work too well in 1812.

 JB>  Nor do I think they ever truly envisioned the
 JB> volunteer military we have today, which functions globally. Far
 JB> different than trying to appropriate funds for a conscripted army put
 JB> together for a particular threat at a particular time, which would
 JB> have been the case back in those times.  The very idea that America
 JB> would one day be fighting overseas for other countries as often as we
 JB> have was probably unthinkable.

Prior to WWII the US army was very small, it has never been that small since
and probably never will be.  FWIW there are more flag officers (generals,
admirals)
on active duty today than there were at the height of WWII when the US had
about
5 million men (and women) under arms.

A standing army is a threat to liberty and freedom.  Plus, if you have one
you're likely
to use it even when it isn't necessary.  If Bush minor had to mobilize an army
in order
to embark on his adventures those adventures wouldn't have happened.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)