What are your thoughts on sections 1.8.12 through 1.8.16 of the US Constitution?

[flybeech]

They are;

1.8.12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

1.8.13 To provide and maintain a Navy;

1.8.14 To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of
the land and naval Forces;

1.8.15 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

1.8.16 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;

What are your thoughts of these sections of the United States Constitution and how they apply today?

 

[DeerAssassin]

Sounds like the gubmint should be issuing me a military rifle, and teaching me how to use it if the need arises. At least according to that last section.

 

[flybeech]

Sounds like the gubmint should be issuing me a military rifle, and teaching me how to use it if the need arises. At least according to that last section.

I see. So section 1.8.16 reserved to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. As the lawful military, the citizen militia looked toward their respective State for armament, training and appointed officers for leadership. No where in this section, or any other part of the Constitution, do I see any authorization to invade any foreign nation, without a declaration of war to prevent an invasion of the Union.

Stepping back to 1.8.12, it appears the Framers limited the formation of armies to 2 year funding increments in the case of declared war, since the only lawful military was the citizen militia and making standing armies illegal, since they could be used against the people.

Section 1.8.13 appears the Constitution allows maintenance of a standing Navy, since invasion at that time would have been most likely by sea, suggesting that the Navy was needed as the first line of defense of our borders, to fend off a foreign invasion. We had a small navy, presumably to act as the first line of defense, while the State citizen militia were mobilized to conduct defense of the land from foreign invasion. As technology evolved and we learned to fly, it appears an Air Force armed with aviation assets and further space defense assets would fall into the same category as the Navy, since the primary purpose of maintaining those assets was to defend the border.

Examination of section 1.8.15 "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", appears to say that Congress would call forth and mobilize the respective State citizen militias to execute the Laws of the Union, that is, enforcement of the Constitution and the preservation of liberty. The respective State citizen militias were to self-police and suppress insurrection, but insurrection or rebellion from whom? According to section 1.8.12, We the People as the citizen militia, are the only lawful military within the United States and our duty is to defend the Constitution and preserve liberty, so those who rebel are those who would seek to destroy the Constitution and take away liberty, right? How could We the People rebel against ourselves, if we control our own destiny? The States citizen's militia is also charged with repelling invasions, which suggests border defense, since an invader attacks from outside the Union, should they get through the defensive naval force required under 1.8.13.

These sections taken together indicate to me that standing armies are unlawful since they can be used against the American citizen. Leadership of the sovereign States provides for training, equipping and appointment of officers for leadership of the respective State's citizen militias, naval forces and by extension air and space forces are needed at the front line to defend the union from invasion of foreign aggressors, with the citizen militia having sole and full responsibility to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Taken together, these sections charge We the People with the full responsibility of policing ourselves. I do not believe there is any other nation on Earth, where the supreme law of the land requires citizens to police themselves and have full control of their own destiny.

 

[R. Johnson]

1.8.12 has been a point of personal debate for me for a little while now. It was written in because the founders were suspicious of a standing army. There are other provisions in the constitution that are indicative of this. As it applies today, well the Navy in its current form is constitutional, along with the Marine Corps. The Regular Army is not, technically. In my opinion if the need for war arrises, an army should be raised from the National Guards of the states to create an Army to execute the war. Then it could be further supplemented by members of the unorganized militia if needed. The funds, of course, to be appropriated for no more than two years.

My point of personal debate lies in the Air Force. At first I felt it was appropriate to label it an army because it was born of The Army. Now days I feel as though it lies more in line with the Navy. While not a part, nor ever having been a part of the U.S. Navy, I think what the Air Force does is closer in line with what the Navy once did (ie troop transport, cargo and supplies, along with combat) and so, constitutionally speaking, should be thought of as a navy.

Finally, while the Regular Army's current existence isn't in the spirit of that section of the Constitution, it's not technically unconstitutional either. The appropriation of funds for the Army occurs at an interval of every two years or less, and it's members are drawn from the unorganized militia. So, the existence of the Regular Army is based purely around a loop hole, and if it were to be challenged I feel as though the challenger would lose.

 

[Glocktogo]

I'd say the world has moved on. In the days of the Founding Fathers, even a minor threat to the nation could take weeks or even months, to develop and transit. Now it's a mere hours or in the case of ICBM's, minutes.

We must unfortunatley continue to field and support a standing army. However, the current doctrine of expeditionary wars is unnecessary and in contrast with the intent of the Founders.