Last edited by Bronkowitz; 05-06-2007 at 09:34 PM.
What the constitution says is, your interpretation of what "maintain" means isn't.
It's one of the damnable reasons we have lawyers, judges and courts. There is a certain amount of ambiguity. You may well be right, I just don't read it that way. There may be supreme court precedent that expands on it
Last edited by Atlas; 05-06-2007 at 09:42 PM.
It also stands to reason that if the constitution did authorize a standing army, that there would be no reason for the commander in chief to have to go to congress to get a declaration of war. What was feared is that the very freedoms proptected by the constitution could quite easily be infringed upon by those representing government if a federal army existed.
Madison (the man many call the father of the constitution) said,
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Does that sound to you like he supported it? If so, why did he not come right out and say the feds could maintain an army just as it authorized a navy to be maintained?
Last edited by Mystery; 05-06-2007 at 09:50 PM.
Now, IMO, therein lies a true insult to the constitution, in that no president has gone to congress to ask for a declaration of war before acting since Roosevelt. And congress has yet to stop it by acting with the pursestrings. In fact, the congress abrogated their constitutional duty and handed that power over to the executive.
I agree about the war declaration. The executive office is sworn to uphold the constitution, and if unconstitutional orders are given to the military (as in undeclared wars), they should not be followed. The military in Iraq is not defending the constitution of this country; they are following their oath to the commander in chief instead. That's not how it should be working. Obviously.
On your second point we agree on the premise, but not on the method.
If the presidents have given illegal orders, it has been with the implicit permission of the legislative and the judicial, neither of whom has meaningfully intervened.
It is definitely NOT for any part of the executive branch to interpret the constitutionality of what the executive is doing. IMO the framers were indeed afraid of a military government or junta
Last edited by Atlas; 05-06-2007 at 11:15 PM.