Comments on: The Constitutional Authority for Standing Armies? http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/05/27/the-congress-holds-the-war-powers/ Bringing the latest news, wittiest commentary, and the best bloggers to the Internet. Brilliantly planned, perfectly executed--the Inquirer of Politics. Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:07:24 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Ugly American http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/05/27/the-congress-holds-the-war-powers/#comment-21864 Ugly American Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:33:16 +0000 http://inquirer.wordpress.com/?p=2243#comment-21864 It's true, the standing army is unconstitutional. The US is supposed to have a militia of armed citizens like Switzerland. Xe aka Blackwater is also unconstitutional. During their lifetimes, the Founders presided over the execution of people who raised mercenary armies on US soil. Furthermore, while the Constitution was amended to provide for an income tax, it was never amended to transfer the minting of money to the private 'federal' reserve. They are also unconstitutional. It’s true, the standing army is unconstitutional. The US is supposed to have a militia of armed citizens like Switzerland.

Xe aka Blackwater is also unconstitutional. During their lifetimes, the Founders presided over the execution of people who raised mercenary armies on US soil.

Furthermore, while the Constitution was amended to provide for an income tax, it was never amended to transfer the minting of money to the private ‘federal’ reserve. They are also unconstitutional.

]]> By: Mako Hunter 06 http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/05/27/the-congress-holds-the-war-powers/#comment-20611 Mako Hunter 06 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:03:44 +0000 http://inquirer.wordpress.com/?p=2243#comment-20611 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. 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.

]]> By: Gibby http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/05/27/the-congress-holds-the-war-powers/#comment-20609 Gibby Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:36:43 +0000 http://inquirer.wordpress.com/?p=2243#comment-20609 "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 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.

]]> By: Mako Hunter 06 http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/05/27/the-congress-holds-the-war-powers/#comment-20347 Mako Hunter 06 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:06:03 +0000 http://inquirer.wordpress.com/?p=2243#comment-20347 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 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

]]> By: Jefferson on Warfare « The Political Inquirer http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/05/27/the-congress-holds-the-war-powers/#comment-13280 Jefferson on Warfare « The Political Inquirer Fri, 30 May 2008 02:53:43 +0000 http://inquirer.wordpress.com/?p=2243#comment-13280 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Flick http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/05/27/the-congress-holds-the-war-powers/#comment-13229 Flick Wed, 28 May 2008 12:08:24 +0000 http://inquirer.wordpress.com/?p=2243#comment-13229 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 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

]]>