Forums | MacLife

JakeTheTall wrote:

America doesn't need much of an army to defend our country.

We don't need it because we have it.

Metacell wrote:

radarman wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Why should we pay for a standing army?

I'm a bit disturbed by the lack of smiley face, or other indication you are joking. I don't want to consider that you might not have been joking, as that thought is too disturbing to consider.

You know the constitution actually forbids maintaining a standing army for more than 2 years after a war?  That's why we always have to make sure were at war.

Nobody's ever threatened us with a land force (since the British).

Oh, please show me where it says that.

That says nothing about a standing army being forbidden after two years have elapsed since the last war. It just says that the military budget can only last for two years.

Article I, section 8, Clause 12:

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

EDIT: D'oh!

OK, so there not forbidden from maintaining the army, just from appropriating money to pay for it.

Last edited by Metacell (2009-04-29 7:37 pm)

JakeTheTall wrote:

radarman wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Why should we pay for a standing army?

I'm a bit disturbed by the lack of smiley face, or other indication you are joking. I don't want to consider that you might not have been joking, as that thought is too disturbing to consider.

America doesn't need much of an army to defend our country.

Sorry, Jake, but you're wrong here. Even setting aside the ever-diminishing value of two oceans etc., ask Rib to explain why the British Army of a century ago had 5 year enlistments, and yourself how long it might take you to, say, learn to master flying, let alone fighting, an F-22. Rasing, training, mobilizing an army takes even longer now than when weapons [now weapons 'systems'] were simpler.

==

(Hell, it takes user years to learn to fight properly in radiation zones or with nanoaugs. [/inside jk])

§ 283. The next clause grants the power to " raise and support armies." This no doubt means a regular force as distinct from militia, the calling forth of whom is provided for by a distinct clause. No limit is placed upon the size of the army, for the reason so often assigned by the authors of the federalist, that no limit could be assigned to the necessities of the country for defense. But an important limit is put upon the permanency of this army, which recalls the English check upon the power of the Crown as the declarer of war,

iThe Thomas Gibbsons, 8 Cr. 421.

and as the generalissimo of the army. One of these checks is the peculiar form of the bill to raise the army, which gave it the name of the Mutiny bill (see ante1}; there being no similar provision in our Constitution. But the other British check is substantially embodied in this clause in the words, " But no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." In England the term is one year. It was made two years by our Constitution because the term of service of the House of Eepresentatives is two years. The forbidding of an appropriation for the support of an army for a longer period than two years makes it impossible for the President to use that army beyond that term for any illicit purpose, without the renewal of the appropriation by the two houses of Congress. It is a most potent check upon the abuse of power by the President as commander-in- chief, and was within the view of the framers of the Constitution, as appears from the strong statement of Mr. Hamilton in the Federalist? which is worthy of insertion here: " The legislature of the United States will be obliged by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army; if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence." This being so, it is in the power of Congress to condition the grant of money for-the support of the army upon terms which will secure its non-use by the President, even during the two years, for any purpose hostile to the liberty of the people.

The Constitution of the United States By John Randolph Tucker, Henry St. George Tucker

It's not as if the military industrial complex is some sacred cow.

The militia has it's uses, just the same as the standing army does. The war of 1812 and a few others showed that a trained, dedicated force is more effective on the battlefield than the local militia.

That said, a local militia/squad that knows what it is doing can cause some effective mischief among an invading army. Primarily sniping, harassment, delays, disruption of supplies, and the occasional bombing inside of the enemy's secure area. Basically what every insurgent movement has done through history. Our own Revolutionary war vets this out - the militias mostly preformed harassment and delay tactics until the standing army arrived.