Is a standing army constitutional?

[breakingcontact]

Why or why not?

If not, how should we defend ourselves against other countries which do have standing armies?

 

[TXAZ]

Considering the preamble to the Constitution explicitly calls for the Federal gov. to provide for a "common defense", ala:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.", yes.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

The way I read it, a standing army is constitutional as long as it's funded by congress at least every two years - although the scenario of funding an army every year was probably unforeseen.

Also the President is only technically Commander in Chief when the army and navy (and/or state militias) are called into service by congress. If course they're always in service these days.

I think a bigger risk is that we allow the president to attack countries who aren't threatening us domestically - without a formal declaration of war. That's unconstitutional.

In today's world where you can launch a strike from the other side of the world and be here in one day one could argue that a standing army is necessary.

I think it would be better to downsize the standing army and beef up the state militias. I also think it would be better to intervene less internationally.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I got that by reading Article 1, Section 8.

 

[breakingcontact]

Considering the preamble to the Constitution explicitly calls for the Federal gov. to provide for a "common defense", ala:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.", yes.

Right, but they could raise that army when needed. I suppose you need to have a defense in place before an offensive action happens though.

 

[atticus finch]

The way I read it, a standing army is constitutional as long as it's funded by congress at least every two years - although the scenario of funding an army every year was probably unforeseen.

Also the President is only technically Commander in Chief when the army and navy (and/or state militias) are called into service by congress. If course they're always in service these days.

I think a bigger risk is that we allow the president to attack countries who aren't threatening us domestically - without a formal declaration of war. That's unconstitutional.

In today's world where you can launch a strike from the other side of the world and be here in one day one could argue that a standing army is necessary.

I think it would be better to downsize the standing army and beef up the state militias. I also think it would be better to intervene less internationally.

Funded every two years regardless or only every two years during time of constitutionally declared war? I'd have to reread that section to recall for certain?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

It would be foolish to have no trained and equipped army these days. Russia would invade us in less than a year if we disbanded the army.

But... the size, mission and make up of that army is what I question.

There's a wording distinction between the army and navy in the constitution. I believe that's because an army was envisioned to be for defense and the navy to protect our interests further away from home. They didn't envision us fighting wars all over the world.

Since I believe social programs are not a valid function of government...it would not be too much in tax dollars to have each state use that money to fund a well outfitted and trained militia.

I could even see states pulling resources or different states having specialized programs. Maybe the standing army would be smaller and mainly SF and advisors who train the state militias.

There are plenty of effective options we could explore, IMO.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Funded every two years regardless or only every two years during time of constitutionally declared war? I'd have to reread that section to recall for certain?

I think it implies during war, but I don't read it as saying that out right.

 

[atticus finch]

I think it implies during war, but I don't read it as saying that out right.

Without rereading it on my part to refresh my memory, I believe it does say or specify funding for an army during time of constitutionally declared war only. The one military organization the Founders wanted on a permanant basis was a navy, not an army. They knowing armies were the main means of the imposition of tyranny, navies not being very useful on land for such things but needed to protect americans abroad in whatever situation, barbary coast pirates being one example.
It seems based on thier writings such as the second amendment as well as the federalist papers & others they intended or desired an armed and reasonably trained civilian populace who could be called upon in the event or need of national defense "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state......" They've made it clear who they were speaking about when they wrote about militias, it being the public at large not what exists now.

At first glance I'd wonder why you think if we disbanded our current military and created a militia such as the Founders intended it would mean we'd almost certainly be invaded?
Those who'd want to do so I don't argue exist, however it seems the idea of an armed populace is either enough of a deterrent or enough of a military option to keep that from happening.
Whether or not Yammamoto's comment about invading the US is real or not, I suspect it was what he said given other conversations which did happen and were along the same line of thinking.
It is one example of an armed populace alone being enough of a deterrent to invasion or such things.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I think Putin would be bold enough to try. Maybe just Alaska first for the resources.

I say that completely disbanding all of it would be an issue because of the logistics. The response time for an event would be different if you needed to pull everyone away from their lives and organize vs having at least a minimal force to immediately detect and respond.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

At a minimum you would need a standing militia or a small mix of standing army.

Things play out much quicker these days.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

I think Putin would be bold enough to try. Maybe just Alaska first for the resources.

I say that completely disbanding all of it would be an issue because of the logistics. The response time for an event would be different if you needed to pull everyone away from their lives and organize vs having at least a minimal force to immediately detect and respond.

Honestly I think Navy, Air Force and an armed populace alone could suffice as deterrence. Certainly in terms of nuclear, most of our deterrence comes from these two entities and not so much the Army. We can still keep our tech up to date (or rather ahead of the rest of the world) as well through these two branches and they have been operating our nuclear strike capabilities since WWII.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Putin would understand that it would be suicide to invade the American mainland. As it would also be to invade Russia in the dead of winter. Nobody is taking over nobody regardless of standing armies.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Strictly speaking, and following my libertarianism, I don't think it is. If it is not explicitly unconstitutional, I believe it does violate the spirit of the Revolution and the founding documents. It certainly can and has been abused. I would argue it has been abused more than it has been used in just causes. Of all the military actions since the Revolution, I can really only think off the top of the head two, the War of 1812 and WWII, that were necessary and just. That is two of literally hundreds of military incursions in 240 years.

Thoreau said it best. It shows that not much has changed in over 150 years.

The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war,[SIZE=-1](2)[/SIZE] the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1

Or consider General Smedley Butler's writings on the subject.

 

[mikeofcontex]

Honestly I think Navy, Air Force and an armed populace alone could suffice as deterrence. Certainly in terms of nuclear, most of our deterrence comes from these two entities and not so much the Army. We can still keep our tech up to date (or rather ahead of the rest of the world) as well through these two branches and they have been operating our nuclear strike capabilities since WWII.

Just thinking... the Air Force could become a component of the Navy as an aviation supply chain. The Marines could be blended back in to the Navy. The Army could become an administrative agency for the state militias. It is amazing that the constitution can direct your thoughts.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

The Federal govt at its highest has only 2 missions:
1) Defend the shores of these United States collectively.

2) "Leave me and my family the hell alone"* [*Nelson Bunker Hunt]

Now we get into the implied missions side of the house. The size of the military (Officers corp) is controlled by Congress. As for funding every 2 years, that would be one of the best things to happen in the military. THe overhead costs to fund annually is staggering and I am very well acquainted with the funding cycle.

I fully support a separate Army, Marine, Navy, AF etc. That said what we do not have is a integrated military. Our only example of integration is DFAS which is the Dept Defense Finance and Accounting System. We have central pay system and its very efficient.

What we have is staggering duplication of services in the military. The military is made up of 4 prime components: Combat, Combat Support, Combat Service Support and Training. Now the Combat mission is different for each branch. Now get back to the Combat Service Support folks are:
Logistics
Medical
Finance
Ordnance
JAG
Transportation
Chaplin

See any opportunity to integrate these across the services...YOU THINK!!!!!

And I think there is a lot of integration opportunity in the Combat Support side of the house
Mil Intel
MP's
Aviation
Chemical
Engineers
Signal

The cost savings would be staggering.

I am opposed to states fielding combat soldiers. The training requirement to be effective is very high, in todays world you cannot be a part time war fighter...

 

[hwarang54]

Last time I checked "US military" wasn't short for "world police."

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Last time I checked "US military" wasn't short for "world police."

We are and have been since WWII, had we not been I suspect your would be posting in Russian...

 

[hwarang54]

We are and have been since WWII, had we not been I suspect your would be posting in Russian...

I'm gonna go with still posting in English but the world's language would be German or Russian. Probably Russian

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I'm gonna go with still posting in English but the world's language would be German or Russian. Probably Russian

You are right on and that is the other big factor.

Can you imagine large town without a police force, city, county and state,

Now imagine a world without a police force, and yes its the US. Now here is the problem. If not the US, then WHO and vacuums do not stay unfilled very long.