Is a standing army constitutional?

[Richard Simmons]

Our local paper has a letter submitted where the writer states that the 2A was only necessary when our nation was young and had no military so they/we needed a militia which is no longer the case since we have an armed forces. That got me to thinking and after looking back over the constitution, specifically article 1 it seems that our Armed Forces may not be constitutional. From Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

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

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;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


The sections I put in bold don't appear to support a standing military other than a Navy. Is that correct?

[FunkyPertwee]

Wow, keep up this train of thought and you'll transform into an ancap.

If you accept the word of the Supreme Court, there are several clauses which have been interpreted to grant congress nearly limitless powers, so I would say that your minimalist view of the rights granted to the government by the Constitution is not one which would be accepted under our current circumstances regardless of its validity. For example, I'm sure congress would argue that its right to maintain a standing Army comes from the "necessary and proper" or the "promote the general welfare" clauses.

I'm now convinced that we are too far from the principals we were founded under to even begin to correct this government.

[ltorlo64]

I don't see that as preventing a standing army but if it is decided to have a standing army it can only be funded 2 years at a time, which is what we do. Every 2 years a new military budget is passed or, as has been the practice recently, a temporary funding measure is passed that lasts less than 2 years, but that still meets the no longer than 2 year funding prohibition.

As for the Navy, we get authorized in 2 separate statements! First a Navy is required to punish felonies and piracies on the high seas and second, Congress is to raise funds to support and provide a Navy. Go Navy!

[5.56NATO]

Look at what the founders said about standing armies;





For example, James Madison said:
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence 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.

Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...ng-armies.html






Altho' a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary. Fortunately for us our relative situation requires but few. The same circumstances which so effectually retarded, and in the end conspired to defeat the attempts of Britain to subdue us, will now powerfully tend to render us secure. Our distance from the European States in a great degree frees us of apprehension, from their numerous regular forces and the Insults and dangers which are to be dreaded from their Ambition.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_8_12s6.html







George Mason put a finer point on it:
No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence [sic], — yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed, — what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!

In The Federalist, No. 29, Alexander Hamilton echoes not only Mason’s warning against a standing army, but his solution to the threat, as well.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

In commenting on Blackstone’s Commentaries, founding era jurist St. George Tucker speaks as if he foresaw our day and the fatal combination of an increasingly militarized police force and the disarmament of civilians:

Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

The connection between this professional, civilian standing army and the attack on the right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by contemporary liberty-minded scholars, as well.

In his essay, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers' Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence,” Stephen Halbrook writes:

Noah Webster, the influential federalist whose name still appears on dictionaries, stated: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed... ." Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States 56 (P. Ford ed. 1888).
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...s-warned-about




It is well documented that many of America’s Founding Fathers had a very real and deep-seated distrust of standing armies–and for good reason. They had just fought a costly and bloody war for independence, which had been largely predicated upon the propensities for the abuse and misuse of individual liberties by a pervasive and powerful standing army (belonging to Great Britain) amongst them. Listen to Thomas Jefferson: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” Note that Jefferson identified both banking institutions and standing armies as being “dangerous to our liberties.” James Madison said, “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.” Elbridge Gerry (Vice President under James Madison) called standing armies “the bane of liberty.”
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles...ng-Armies.aspx

[l921428x]

Yes and no. Depends on how you use the semantics of the words. That is why there is the NG because a true standing Army
would be like the British or our own army on the ground. Amendments 3 and 4 address this. What you have posted is linked, thru language,
to the 2nd and also tells us that all able bodied men between the ages of 16-45 are the state militia and should be ready(regulated) to fight
for state and country. Semantics.

[5.56NATO]

There's a huge difference between able bodied males of a community ready to defend same and a multitrillion dollar standing army with global projection and the worlds most advanced weapons, in the service of not we the people, but of wall street/jihad barry.

[Hatedbysheeple]

It comes down to, do you want the best, most well trained, and deadliest military in human history. Or do you want some random dudes that get drafted, don't want to be there and are just ok or marginal at best after a rushed and compressed training.

Honestly with what is required for soldiers to know to even operate their equipment on a basic level I do not think it would be possible to to draft and train an army on modern equipment in less than a years time. That is not even bringing into considerations of leadership such as your nco's and senior nco's.

[5.56NATO]

It comes down to, do you want the best, most well trained, and deadliest military in human history. Or do you want some random dudes that get drafted, don't want to be there and are just ok or marginal at best after a rushed and compressed training.

Honestly with what is required for soldiers to know to even operate their equipment on a basic level I do not think it would be possible to to draft and train an army on modern equipment in less than a years time. That is not even bringing into considerations of leadership such as your nco's and senior nco's.

The founders meant us to be trained on those weapons for the time a standing army was needed. You can be sure domestic enemies did their best to relegate militia to the dustbin of history in favor of a standing army they alone control.

[FunkyPertwee]

It comes down to, do you want the best, most well trained, and deadliest military in human history. Or do you want some random dudes that get drafted, don't want to be there and are just ok or marginal at best after a rushed and compressed training.

Honestly with what is required for soldiers to know to even operate their equipment on a basic level I do not think it would be possible to to draft and train an army on modern equipment in less than a years time. That is not even bringing into considerations of leadership such as your nco's and senior nco's.

I agree with you. Conscripted soldiers indoctrinated with nationalism have completely supplanted and outclassed the more primitive militia systems, at least according to my interpretation of history.

However, I'm considering the possibility that a professionalized armed services could be split up and privatized, as businesses are naturally inclined to support the protection of the marketplace and would be less likely to cooperatively engage in unnecessary offensive actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency

[ltorlo64]

The founders meant us to be trained on those weapons for the time a standing army was needed. You can be sure domestic enemies did their best to relegate militia to the dustbin of history in favor of a standing army they alone control.

However, as Hated is pointing out, some of our weaponry is too complex for people to be trained on them once, or even occasionally, and still be able to use.

You still have not addressed if it is constitutional or not. I agree that they Founders, at east some of them, were leery of a standing army. Some of our Founders were also anti-federalists and some did not see the need for a BORs, but we ended up as federal type government (representative republic) and we have a BORs. Finding some people who did not want or like the idea of a standing Army does not mean it is not constitutional.

The Constitution appears to be worded so as to allow a standing army, though I am sure most saw this as a necessary evil. They were wise men and wrote into the Constitution, as they did with all areas of government, checks and balances to keep the army from becoming to strong. First, as I have already discussed, they only know what their funding is 2 years out so making many long range plans is difficult. Second, the head of the military is a civilian, not a military member.

If I am missing something in the Constitution please let me know. From what I see written there a standing army is not required nor is it prohibited. If the country decides to require one there are limits placed on funding and the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

[5.56NATO]

"You still have not addressed if it is constitutional or not."


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

I read this as saying standing armies can be funded no longer than two years.

[Schuetzenman]

My 2 cents is no it really isn't but that didn't stop the Federalists from establishing a standing army. This is how they dismemebered the Militia that is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. By creating a standing army they have conned people into thinking they don't need to be armed and experienced in the use of arms. I do agree with the statements that modern weapon systems are going to be too complex for the occassional user to operate. I don't have a perfect answer to a standing army / military. IMO we should of had a more Swiss like system of citizenship where males are compelled to do manditory service. Few military people are flaming liberals, I think the process is transformative to a degree. Of course there are always exceptions to any rule.

[ltorlo64]

I read this as saying standing armies can be funded no longer than two years.

Does this mean that the army has to be disbanded every 2 years or that the funding has to be re-appropriated every 2 years?

[ltorlo64]

My 2 cents is no it really isn't but that didn't stop the Federalists from establishing a standing army. This is how they dismemebered the Militia that is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. By creating a standing army they have conned people into thinking they don't need to be armed and experienced in the use of arms. I do agree with the statements that modern weapon systems are going to be too complex for the occassional user to operate. I don't have a perfect answer to a standing army / military. IMO we should of had a more Swiss like system of citizenship where males are compelled to do manditory service. Few military people are flaming liberals, I think the process is transformative to a degree. Of course there are always exceptions to any rule.

What in the Constitution prevents having a standing army? I realize the concern of the Founders in having a standing army, but I don't see where a constitutional argument can be made to not have one.

[5.56NATO]

Does this mean that the army has to be disbanded every 2 years or that the funding has to be re-appropriated every 2 years?

No, no standing armies unless there is a need, a war of defense that hopefully be fought outside the US ie they attacked us, we go and kick their asses on their own soil. And then funded for only two years, or I suppose for the duration of that war. As to high tech weapons, the ng gets along fine with most every high tech weapon on a part time basis, as does the navy on a full time basis. And as for nooks, give them to the navy. Land based nuclear weapons are obsolete due to being a primary target for first strikes, let alone every foreign country knows where they are.

[Hatedbysheeple]

No, no standing armies unless there is a need, a war of defense that hopefully be fought outside the US ie they attacked us, we go and kick their asses on their own soil. And then funded for only two years, or I suppose for the duration of that war. As to high tech weapons, the ng gets along fine with most every high tech weapon on a part time basis, as does the navy on a full time basis. And as for nooks, give them to the navy. Land based nuclear weapons are obsolete due to being a primary target for first strikes, let alone every foreign country knows where they are.

So you would be fine with the marine Corp remaining as is since it is part of the navy? What about making it 10 times larger?

[5.56NATO]

I dunno. As long as they were OCONUS (where they'd represent just another standing army if they were CONUS) it'd be fine by me.

[ltorlo64]

As I stated before a standing army was seen as necessary by the Founders, though they knew well the dangers of having one. In order to address the concerns a civilian was placed in charge of the army and funding was restricted. As evidence of this the US Army was created in 1784, after the Continental Army was disbanded after the War for Independence was won. This was before the Constitution was ratified in 1787. Had the Founders wanted to disband the Army they could have wrote into the Constitution that the Army would only be funded during war, but they did not. Instead, as has been pointed out the funding was restricted. In Federalist 26, Alexander Hamilton argues almost exactly the point I am making.

Here is a good article going through the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments and the impetus for the final decision to maintain an army. I am not arguing the size or current use, only that the Constitution does allow it.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution...52/army-clause

[5.56NATO]

Yeah i don't think any of the founders wanted a standing army, just enough people with full time jobs of guarding armories and forts and so on. This does not represent a standing army.

Here's a breakdown of the current standing army;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...n_each_service
The naval and uscg components are excluded as they're naval, but you might include the air force with the rest of the standing army. So that's a lot of standing army. Also, I disagree with the notion that the national guard is militia, it's a federal standing army with the appearance of militia as it is euphemistically under the "control" of a given state's governor even though everyone knows the governors have little or even nothing to do with them until a "crisis" comes along. Militia is every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45.

"The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militi...ited_States%29

[FunkyPertwee]

I dunno. As long as they were OCONUS (where they'd represent just another standing army if they were CONUS) it'd be fine by me.

Yes, because standing armies stationed outside of the home nation have never threatened the stability of past Republics....