Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="R. Johnson" data-source="post: 2082453" data-attributes="member: 10606">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.</blockquote>

Verification