"The Curse of Standing Armies"
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Martha R. [ Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:42 am ]
Post subject:  "The Curse of Standing Armies"

Did you know that the Constitution does now authorize a standing army, but rather just a militia when needed? This article about standing armies is very interesting and written from a Christian perspective. Take a look:

Author:  Pam in Colorado [ Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "The Curse of Standing Armies"

I'm assuming you meant "does not" authorize a standing army...

To be back to the thinking of our fore fathers.... do you think we truly will go back in that direction?

Author:  Martha R. [ Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "The Curse of Standing Armies"

Yes, standing armies are neither authorized by the Constitution nor were they favored by the Founding Fathers. The only military authorized were a militia (which could be called up when needed) and a standing Navy to protect the shores.

Author:  Anna1111 [ Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "The Curse of Standing Armies"

I can see many of the points of the article - if you have a military & technology, there IS a temptation to test it out and see how it works.

Technology is very different now - if a missile were headed for us, there'd be no time to muster an old fashioned militia.

There have been some terr*rist attempts in recent years in which the military jets were able to intervene and stop attacks before a loss of life occurrred.

Author:  scottbiddle [ Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "The Curse of Standing Armies"

Actually, Article I section 8 of the Constitution allows Congress to "raise and support armies" provided that the appropriations (money) for those armies don't last longer than two years at a time. This means the Constitution CAN call for a standing army as long as they are willing to appropriate money for them at least every two years (and they pass an annual appropriations bill which includes military spending, so this is moot).

Article II section 2 says "The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" which seems to imply an expectation that there will be an army and navy (the navy is separately authorized in Article I Section 8 and doesn't have the every 2 year appropriations requirement)

Article IV Section 4 requires the United States to "protect each of them against invasion" (referring to states) and "against domestic violence" (states attacking other states). Hard to protect against those things without an army.

I think that there is a valid discussion to be had about the role of the military in the modern world and in the United States, but I think any claim that the current system is unconstitutional is WAY off base.

Author:  Martha R. [ Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "The Curse of Standing Armies"

Reapproving spending on the army every two years was not the intent of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were VERY opposed to standing armies. When the gov't has an army constantly at its disposal, it has more power than the Fathers felt it should. That power could easily be used to oppress the citizens.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group