Giving the President the power to wage war is as anti-American Revolution as you can possibly get. One of the very reasons our Founders decided against a monarchy and opted for a Republic is because the people should decide if they wish to go to war, not the King. By giving our Presidents the power to go to war (starting with Harry Truman up to today with George Bush), we have essentially ceased to be a Republic and now have a monarchy. As much as the Congress will bicker about the war, the President always gets what he wants. Clinton got to stay in Bosnia and Kosovo his entire presidency and nearly invaded Iraq. Bush has gotten virtually everything he wanted in terms of foreign policy. We are an Empire, not a Republic any longer.
So what has made it so easy for us to become an Empire with an elected King instead of a civilian President who cannot declare? The obvious answer is one our Founding Fathers abhorred: the idea of standing armies. Looking through the Constitution, I tried to find where the constitutional authority for a standing army was found. Here are the excerpts I found related to the standing army:
From Article I, Section VIII, where the Congress’ explicit powers are named:
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;
From Article II, Section II, where the powers of the President are defined:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
From the looks of it, the President is the commander in chief of the forces that are sent to war by the Congress. The forces that the president sends are temporary armies in service for no more than two years.
So why the fear over standing armies? I believe some quotes by our Founders will be instrumental in showing why armies are to be feared and militias are to be praised:
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).
President James Madison: “…to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;… to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;…” – President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.
James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)
Thomas Jefferson: “I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
Thomas Jefferson: “Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion].” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
Thomas Jefferson: “The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.” –Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160
Thomas Jefferson: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184
Thomas Jefferson: “Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154
What, then, can be learned from this? That standing armies are a threat to liberty. It is through standing armies that the people are enslaved. Right now it is not overt, but a covert enslavement. Our money is squandered and spent all over the globe protecting not ourselves, but the interests of various international bankers and large corporate elite who are opposed to the free market way of doing things.
Luckily for us, this is all that has happened with our standing army. We have not yet had the right person come along to use our army to steal our freedom from us. But it will happen, it is inevitable. We only need a Bonaparte to come along.
Filed under: Commentary, Congress, Geopolitics, History, News, Philosophy, Politics
I couldn’t agree more, but what is the solution to a standing army? What did the founders propose as a means of defending our nation’s territory? The militia. The reason we have a standing army is because we have allowed our government to marginalize the miltia, which is yet another way of consolidating power to the Executive Branch.
Well, with rights come responsibilities. The right to keep and bear arms has an associated responsibility, which is in the opening phrase of the Second Amendment–join the militia. It’s not a standing army that’s necessary to the security of a free state.
If you don’t like America having a standing army, then consider looking in to today’s militia at http://www.awrm.org. The militia is experiencing a revival of sorts as the empire/police state grows.
Peace
[...] wanted to post something about this because of Lance’s article on standing armies. It’s difficult to argue that any major country could function without [...]
The Militia is the Army and Air National Guard. “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”. US Code provides for the “Federalizing” of the Guard in times of “National Emergency”. When Guard units are activated for deployment, the are governed by Title 10, and when they are not in federal service they are governed by Title 32 of the US Code. The Governors are the Commander in Chief of the various state Guards in Title 32 Status. The Federal governments charge under this constitutional statement is to provide for training and standardization so the forces of the various states can combine to form a functioning and effective national force in times of need. Today, more Guard soldiers and airmen have deployed (Title 10) than active duty personnel. The guard has the same equipment, and meets the same standards of training and experience required of the active duty counter part. Which brings us to the question of why have a large standing army? And How do we meet the national defense requirements of our global environment. The founding fathers never envisioned forces that could influence American security from beyond our borders unless by sea. That is why the US Navy is explicitly separate and unique under this rule. The large, albeit shrinking, army is an expensive by product of the cold war. Where fores on the ground in Europe were required to keep the Soviet expansion and communism in check. When the enemy is at the gates, practicality dictates a ready force on the opposite side of the gate. This resulted in the arms race and the creation of America’s “Large Standing Army”. This continued after the Korean and Vietnam wars to this day. I believe the threat of a large standing army, in the context of your fore fathers debate, is only real if it is based in the continental United States. What so many people in America chose to ignore is that the reality that the second amendment is most concerned with protecting the “independent states” from the newly formed “federal” government under the constitution. Governments are about power, as such they fear opposition. This is really at the center of the gun laws. What is an amazing reality is that so many National Guard units are and have been from the beginning decisively engaged in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are Guard Colonels, commanding Combat Brigades and doing so very effectively, there have been at least two Army National Guard Division commanders in Iraq since 2003. My recommendation is to marginalize the Active Component and expand the “Militia” under the constitution, not the fringe extremest elements popularized by Neo-Nazis, Anti-Semites, and White Seperemist groups. But as a “well regulated militia”, under control of the states, and trained, and funded by congress
“I believe the threat of a large standing army, in the context of your fore fathers debate, is only real if it is based in the continental United States.”
This is easily one of the most ludicrous statements I’ve ever read. Ask the poor souls living under the boot of our occupying forces in over 130 countries if they agree with you. But then, they’re less than human aren’t they? A hundred of their lives are not worth one American life – is that it? Sickening.
I must have been mistaken, I thought this was a thoughtful discussion about the constitutionality of a “Large Standing Army”. But it appears, as usual it has digressed to an emotional, self righteous, and judgmental forum for at least one participant. How did the vast majority of Western Europeans feel about the “Occupation” that resulted in the tearing down of the Berlin Wall? How do most South Koreans Feel about US forces and military support in there country today? The subtly of the discussion above was how do we meet or constitutional obligation to “Provide for the Common Defense” while ensuring adequate protection from Tyranny. Some could use a little more time reading the question before reacting with an answer.