If only the founders had your enlightened guidance they could have perfected the country!
If only the founders had your enlightened guidance they could have perfected the country!
"And how we burned in the camps later thinking, what would things have been like, if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain, whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
There was a time a standing army wasn't really needed. We were separated from the rest of the world by two huge oceans, so a small army and navy was all that was needed to protect our boarders.
That all changed with the invention of the airplane as a weapon. Once bombs were put on aircraft, and later Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) came about, a standing army that could bring the fight to the enemy became easier, but training in the new weapons of war became more than just being able to sight in your target and pull the trigger.
Our founding fathers would be amazed at how great this country has become with our better capacity for killing each other.
I think they would see that the wisdom displayed in the checks and balances put into the Constitution has been proven. They would see this in the way our country acts towards its citizens by disregarding many aspects of the Constitution and how it still protects us and limits government. I also think they would sound an alarm for just how far from our Constitution we have swayed.Originally Posted by imanaknut
"Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014
"HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012
I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.
Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!
NRA Endowment Member
You have not provided a constitutional basis for this belief. You have provided arguments from some Founders on why they did not want a standing army and I have provided arguments from some Founders for a standing army. I have discussed what is actually in the Constitution that allows for a standing army and how what is written limits its power and authority. I have also provided historical evidence, the fact that a standing army was authorized before the Constitution was ratified and it was not disbanded as part of the constitutional debate or ratification process. This is beginning to sound like the discussion most of us have had with people regarding the Second Amendment (SA). This discussion with someone who is for gun control goes like this, "had the Founders knew about machine guns they would have written the SA to prevent civilian ownership of machine guns (or handguns with "high capacity magazines", etc." You do not want a standing army so you place restrictions in the Constitution that are not there and from the historical evidence of what the Founders did, do not exist. It also is starting to sound like discussions I am involved with regarding the First Amendment (FA) and the limits on freedom of religion, speech, and the press. We need to be careful in that we do not let our beliefs and prejudices cloud how we read the Constitution.
Now, before you think I am writing fighting words, I am not. I have asked, and I will ask again, for you to show me how I am reading the Constitution wrong as compared to what you see. I do not discount the concern of a standing army the Founders had, but I see in the way the Constitution is written a way to address those concerns and come up with a way for a standing army that everyone could live with, even if they were not happy with a standing army. Please show me another way to read and understand what is written in the Constitution.
"Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014
"HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012
I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.
Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!
NRA Endowment Member
I can't help that you can't understand that the constitution provides to raise and support armies funded for no more than two years. No wonder 0bama, congress, and scrotus gets away with all their unconstitutional acts.
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
"And how we burned in the camps later thinking, what would things have been like, if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain, whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
That's why it's appropriated every two years or less.....Getting around the Constitution is the way it's done for 100 years or more.
Agreed. Its following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law in the name expediency.
"I'm fucking furious, I'm violently angry, and I like it. If you don't know what that feels like then I feel bad for you"
Hold that thought while I try to understand what you are saying.
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12What I am trying to understand, that the three of you agree on, is what in those words requires the Army to be disbanded after two years? 5.56 has already stated that in the case of a war it would be alright to keep the Army around for more than 2 years, but if we are not at war the Army needs to go away. This is where I get confused. If it is unconstitutional to have the Army for more than 2 years, it is unconstitutional no matter what. There is no exception in the Constitution allowing for funding the Army for more than two years, which means that if a war lasts for more than 2 years, we have to stop fighting, disband the Army, and then stand up a new Army, then we can start fighting again. The words are fairly clear to me, the Army can only be funded for no more than 2 years at a time, I see nothing there that says the Army has to be disbanded. Of course if Congress decides not to fund the Army it would be disbanded, but that decision according to Article I, Section 8, is left to Congress.
I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just trying to understand how you are getting from the words in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 that the Army cannot be allowed to stand for more than 2 years.
"Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014
"HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012
I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.
Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!
NRA Endowment Member
And further making the constitution irrelevant;
The AUMF put forward by McConnell would not restrict the president’s use of ground troops, nor have any limits related to time or geography. Nor would it touch on the issue of what to do with the 2001 AUMF, which the Obama administration has used to attack ISIS despite that authorization’s instructions to use force against those who planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks. By contrast, the legal authority put forward by the administration last February wouldn’t authorize “enduring offensive ground combat operations” and would have ended three years after enactment, unless reauthorized.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/566...-war-authority
Last edited by 5.56NATO; 01-23-2016 at 05:16 PM.
"And how we burned in the camps later thinking, what would things have been like, if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain, whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks