This has probably been discussed in the past, however I would like all of you big government people out there to provide your arguments for why our government has intentionally violated the constitution by funding our army for a term greater than two years.

The constitution does allow for constant funding of a Navy, however the funding of an army is explicitly prohibited for any term greater than two years.

Article. I.
Section. 8.
Clause 12

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

Clause 13
The Congress shall have Power To provide and maintain a Navy;


http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Quoted: This has probably been discussed in the past, however I would like all of you big government people out there to provide your arguments for why our government has intentionally violated the constitution by funding our army for a term greater than two years. The constitution does allow for constant funding of a Navy, however the funding of an army is explicitly prohibited for any term greater than two years. Article. I. Section. 8. Clause 12 The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Clause 13 The Congress shall have Power To provide and maintain a Navy; http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Nothing says they can't fund it for two years, then at the end of that two years fund it for another two years and so on. Defense spending bills come up every year pretty much....

Defend it? Sure.

They do a magnificent job. Period.

There's so much unconstitutional BULLSHIT out there that DOESN'T work to pick on, you'll forgive me if I give the boys in uniform a pass.

Whats a Constitution?

Quoted: Whats a Constitution?

And why do I care what it says?

Nothing says they can't fund it for two years, then at the end of that two years fund it for another two years and so on. Defense spending bills come up every year pretty much....

Your right nothing does say that, except for a little thing called common sense. You do understand that back in the day they didn’t have word processors and couldn’t make each clause of the constitution 400 pages long as to avoid loopholes that assholes would come up with hundreds of years later? Just like that assholes that say the right to keep and bear arms only extends to the militias.

Well, this isn't the 1700's when you can just call up a bunch of Minutemen and have them show up with muskets and ammo and a 3 day supply of biscuits and be ready to fight.

The nature of the threat has changed too. Now military powers around the world have a navy, air force, tanks, and paratroopers.

When you have a standing threat, you must have a standing capability and the tools to deal with that threat. If you don't have a rather large standing army, then you can't train on and maintain the complex equipment that exists today that didn't in those days.

Simply put, it's just not feasible.

Orwell84 are you implying that we should not keep a standing military ?

Quoted: The world has changed a bit in the last 225 years.  There is no violation--it is funded for (I think) LESS THAN two years--annually--then reappropriated when that expires.  It ends up being ongoing, but I would hate to have to begin from scratch as invaders were pouring in--given today's logistics regarding transportation.   The tin foil aisle is over there ------------------------------------------------------>

I agree with you in that the level of training nessisary to conduct war is far greater than it used to be, but rather than violate the spirit of the clause why not ammend and allow for long term funding of the army?  There is however a good argument to be made that an idle army is just begging to be put to use in ways it shouldn't be.  It's pretty clear the founders were VERY opposed to standing armies and I doubt would have chuckeled if they were just funded every two years in perpetuity.

Quoted: Orwell84 are you implying that we should not keep a standing military ?

I certainly hope not. If he is serious, I would like to remind him that the only thing standing between The Constitution and the enemy is our "standing army". Without them, the Chinese or Soviets would have been wiping their ass all over The Contitution by now. Lotta good it would do then, huh? A 1700's style militia is not capable of defending our nation and it's interests against the modern threats they face. Anyone suggesting such an approach should be bitch slapped.  

Uh, the funding for the Army is a yearly thing.

Basically, what the Constitution says is "You can have a standing Army. You have to fund it. And you have to reapprove that funding at least every two years."

Basically, it means the pursestrings of the Army are controlled by the Congress, so the Army doesn't become it's own little fiefdom.

It IS a check on the power of a standing Army, just not in the way you think, Orwell.

Quoted: Your right nothing does say that, except for a little thing called common sense.

...something you obviously lack.

There's so much unconstitutional BULLSHIT out there that DOESN'T work to pick on, you'll forgive me if I give the boys in uniform a pass.

Just wait until Hilary outlaws guns and that army is turned on you, there is a reason that the clause is in their, any army that can be turn on foreign powers can be turn on the people of it’s own nation. The proper way to defend a nation with decentralized private militia.

Quoted: Nothing says they can't fund it for two years, then at the end of that two years fund it for another two years and so on. Defense spending bills come up every year pretty much.... Your right nothing does say that, except for a little thing called common sense. You do understand that back in the day they didn’t have word processors and couldn’t make each clause of the constitution 400 pages long as to avoid loopholes that assholes would come up with hundreds of years later? Just like that assholes that say the right to keep and bear arms only extends to the militias.

Speaking of common sence try using a little here. How is it a loophole to appropreate funds on a yearly basis if the constitution says the max time they can appropriate funds for is two years??
They never exceed that time limit set in the consititution. Thats not a loophole, thats folowing the constitution.

Go troll someplace else.
And who you calling an asshole anyway?

AGNTSA....

C'mon guys chill! Lets have a DISCUSSION and not flame someone for a differing opinion. If you have a point contrary to orwells DISCUSS it and refrain from nastyness for once

Quoted: The world has changed a bit in the last 225 years.

and that's the arguement used against the 2nd Amendment, isn't it?

Funding bills for the Dept. of Defense are done yearly.

I'd like to see any evidence to the contrary.

It sure would make gov't contracting much easier if they didn't have funding issues every year....

Quoted: There's so much unconstitutional BULLSHIT out there that DOESN'T work to pick on, you'll forgive me if I give the boys in uniform a pass. Just wait until Hilary outlaws guns and that army is turned on you, there is a reason that the clause is in their, any army that can be turn on foreign powers can be turn on the people of it’s own nation. The proper way to defend a nation with decentralized private militia.

You do realise that the banning of all possession of guns by civilians is political suicide, and then start confiscating them on a anational basis. It would lead to a lot of deaths, both military/LE and among the people. Doing something like that would very likly throw this country into another civil war. No politician in thier right mind would do that. It is for things like that that the Second amendment was spesificly added to the constitution, to allow the people to protect themselves from a corrupt tyrannical government. Any government that would just toss the Second Amendment would be seen that way by many people because it is the second amendment that garuntes all the others.

Spade has already answered the question. The Founders kept a very small standing army. They funded it on a year-to-year basis, like we do now.

BTW, I did my PhD work in Consitutional Law and History, so I might actually know a bit on the topic.

Quoted: A 1700's style militia is not capable of defending our nation and it's interests against the modern threats they face.

All the more reason for each citizen to have an M1A2 in his driveway.  

Quoted: Orwell84 are you implying that we should not keep a standing military ?

Orwell84 Why dont you answer my simple question ?

Quoted: C'mon guys chill! Lets have a DISCUSSION and not flame someone for a differing opinion. If you have a point contrary to orwells DISCUSS it and refrain from nastyness for once

I'm not supossed to flame a guy thats calling people assholes before the discussion is even half a page old??

I think that comment needs to be directed tword the topic starter more so then the rest of us.

Quoted: This has probably been discussed in the past, however I would like all of you big government people out there to provide your arguments for why our government has intentionally violated the constitution by funding our army for a term greater than two years. The constitution does allow for constant funding of a Navy, however the funding of an army is explicitly prohibited for any term greater than two years. Article. I. Section. 8. Clause 12 The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Clause 13 The Congress shall have Power To provide and maintain a Navy; http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Your point is what?  That we'd be better off re-consituting a Navy, Army etc. on an irregular basis.  Think about it.  Better yet, convince anyone of the efficacy of YOUR plan.....if you have one and aren't just acting stupid.

Passing a budget EVERY YEAR, and including in it the Defense Budget should satisfy your reading of the Constitution.  If not, explain how it does not.

Quoted: Quoted: Nothing says they can't fund it for two years, then at the end of that two years fund it for another two years and so on. Defense spending bills come up every year pretty much.... Your right nothing does say that, except for a little thing called common sense. You do understand that back in the day they didn’t have word processors and couldn’t make each clause of the constitution 400 pages long as to avoid loopholes that assholes would come up with hundreds of years later? Just like that assholes that say the right to keep and bear arms only extends to the militias. Speaking of common sence try using a little here. How is it a loophole to appropreate funds on a yearly basis if the constitution says the max time they can appropriate funds for is two years?? They never exceed that time limit set in the consititution. Thats not a loophole, thats folowing the constitution. Go troll someplace else. And who you calling an asshole anyway?

I'm probably gonna bail on this thread cause it appears to be nothing more than a flame trap.  But to address your point.  Yes they are following the letter of the code as written, I agree.  There is a similar arguement over copyrights.  Congress was allowed to grant limited monopolies on use to promote trade and the arts.  However, they also recognized and accepted that public domain was needed so others could build on previous works and learn without being tied into perpetual licenses thus the requirement of some limit.  The King's printing licenses and other granted monopolies were fresh in their minds.  So they said congress must provide 'limited' protection.  However each time the 'limit' is approached and works threaten to fall into the public domain they extend the 'limit' retroactively and thus nothing ever enters the public domain.  Now, letter of the law, they are in the clear.  They always set a new 'limit' and act withing thier powers but the net effect is to stomp on one  side of the balance that was clearly trying to be achived.

The standing army argument is similar, and while I think it is within thier power to fund it perpetually in 2 year increments, it flys in the face of what the clause was there to do.  Thus I think it would be appropriate to ammend to allow for some level of standing readiness while also allowing for shrinkage when not needed.  I think that's the more honest route to go, but it's unlikely to happen as it's easier to just continue to do this.

Quoted: Uh, the funding for the Army is a yearly thing. Basically, what the Constitution says is "You can have a standing Army. You have to fund it. And you have to reapprove that funding at least every two years." Basically, it means the pursestrings of the Army are controlled by the Congress, so the Army doesn't become it's own little fiefdom. It IS a check on the power of a standing Army, just not in the way you think, Orwell.

That is a good point.

Quoted: Whats a Constitution?

S
I
W
D
Constitution
Ch

Its your characters stamina. Saving throw tables are calculated by this score.

Orwell84 Why dont you answer my simple question ?

Yes, militia is the best way to defend our nation, a standing military can to easily be pointed at it’s people.

Uh, the funding for the Army is a yearly thing. Basically, what the Constitution says is "You can have a standing Army. You have to fund it. And you have to reapprove that funding at least every two years." Basically, it means the pursestrings of the Army are controlled by the Congress, so the Army doesn't become it's own little fiefdom. It IS a check on the power of a standing Army, just not in the way you think, Orwell.

Take a look at history. That is not what is meant by the clause, this is the same crap liberals pull to support gun control “Guns are only for militia”.  

The sentence I made red takes him out of the discussion--and causes him to be dismissed as a simple whacko.   Psssst--Hitlery already had her chance--eight years worth. It ain't gonna happen, even if she should be elected. Geez, embrace reality--it's nice here.

You have no clue what ANY politician is capable of? The fact of the matter is if not with Hillary than it will be later down the road, do you honestly think we will still have guns in 30 years without a revolution? Do you honestly think we will have any freedom left at all in 30 years without a revolution?

Quoted: This ^^ is the best post so far.  It cuts to the meat of the matter.  ::golf clap::

*bows*

I knew all that money spent on my BA wouldn't be wasted.

Quoted: There's so much unconstitutional BULLSHIT out there that DOESN'T work to pick on, you'll forgive me if I give the boys in uniform a pass. Just wait until Hilary outlaws guns and that army is turned on you, there is a reason that the clause is in their, any army that can be turn on foreign powers can be turn on the people of it’s own nation. The proper way to defend a nation with decentralized private militia.

Oh! What utter HORSESHIT!

It OBVIOUSLY wouldn't be doing it's job WELL then, now would it?

Nice try with selective quoting, but it didn't work. It just showed that your original contention has no basis in reality.

Orwell I respect your opinion and concur with much of it.  And you are correct about the standing military.  Throughout history they have been used agaisnt the people they were origionally made to protect.


It is not the majority of the opinion here.

Quoted: There's so much unconstitutional BULLSHIT out there that DOESN'T work to pick on, you'll forgive me if I give the boys in uniform a pass. Just wait until Hilary outlaws guns and that army is turned on you, there is a reason that the clause is in their, any army that can be turn on foreign powers can be turn on the people of it’s own nation. The proper way to defend a nation with decentralized private militia.

We are not living in 1700 any longer. Woud you rather the ROPers be her and us fighting in our streets? I would rather have my ALL VOLUNTEER military take the fight to the enemy. Do you really ennvision local militias going over there? With the lack of morality, the piss poor healt and obesity many Americans are, do you think they are capable? Most militia wannabes are not even able bodied enough to even fit the description of Militia.

Quoted: C'mon guys chill! Lets have a DISCUSSION and not flame someone for a differing opinion. If you have a point contrary to orwells DISCUSS it and refrain from nastyness for once

The layers of tinfoil are too deep for real discussion, I think.  Anyone who thinks a
decentralized militia is an adequate way to defend the republic is so far
down in his bomb shelter there really isn't any point.  

I think the shark has been jumped mentally if you think the Military
is a bad thing.

Orwell84

Having a standing Army that is ready to go at a moments notice is a good thing, although I see your points.   It is kind of like auto insurance, I don't like the premiums, but the coverage is great when I need it most.  

Having a standing Army which is ready to go at a moments notice is also a good preventative measure when you consider we are not the only nation on this earth.   Certainly not the only nation with intrests.   Other nations, good or bad, see our readiness and act accordingly knowing full well of our abilities.  

(For reference see the following incidents:)

Grenada (Cubans)
Panama (Drug traffickers)
Desert Storm I (Iraq)
Desert Storm II a.k.a. OIF (Iraq and Al Qaeda)

We also do not like being stabbed in the back by little short shits with an extremist mission to conquor the world simply because we are in their way.

(For reference see the following incidents:)

Pearl Harbor (Japanese)
New York/Pentagon 9/11 (Taliban - Al Qaeda)

There are other incidents, but you get the point.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nothing says they can't fund it for two years, then at the end of that two years fund it for another two years and so on. Defense spending bills come up every year pretty much.... Your right nothing does say that, except for a little thing called common sense. You do understand that back in the day they didn’t have word processors and couldn’t make each clause of the constitution 400 pages long as to avoid loopholes that assholes would come up with hundreds of years later? Just like that assholes that say the right to keep and bear arms only extends to the militias. Speaking of common sence try using a little here. How is it a loophole to appropreate funds on a yearly basis if the constitution says the max time they can appropriate funds for is two years?? They never exceed that time limit set in the consititution. Thats not a loophole, thats folowing the constitution. Go troll someplace else. And who you calling an asshole anyway? I'm probably gonna bail on this thread cause it appears to be nothing more than a flame trap.  But to address your point.  Yes they are following the letter of the code as written, I agree.  There is a similar arguement over copyrights.  Congress was allowed to grant limited monopolies on use to promote trade and the arts.  However, they also recognized and accepted that public domain was needed so others could build on previous works and learn without being tied into perpetual licenses thus the requirement of some limit.  The King's printing licenses and other granted monopolies were fresh in their minds.  So they said congress must provide 'limited' protection.  However each time the 'limit' is approached and works threaten to fall into the public domain they extend the 'limit' retroactively and thus nothing ever enters the public domain.  Now, letter of the law, they are in the clear.  They always set a new 'limit' and act withing thier powers but the net effect is to stomp on one  side of the balance that was clearly trying to be achived. The standing army argument is similar, and while I think it is within thier power to fund it perpetually in 2 year increments, it flys in the face of what the clause was there to do.  Thus I think it would be appropriate to ammend to allow for some level of standing readiness while also allowing for shrinkage when not needed.  I think that's the more honest route to go, but it's unlikely to happen as it's easier to just continue to do this.

I wouldn't say it's going down hill, but as your post shows, the subject can be disscussed without havig to call folks assholes and such. I can easily see the points you are trying to make. I just didn't like the way the original poster had to throw in the assholes comments when they were not nessesary. We don't know what the intentions of the founding father was when they wrote that clause, we were not thier, but surely even they saw the need to have a continualy standing army however small and to fund it. It seems to me that the limit on the time for funding was more to give congress control over how much money the army got so that they could not as somone else pointed out become thier own little fiefdom. It may have also been as a means to control the spending of the military, by having only a set amount of cash each year they had to get what was most important at the time and couldn't spend it on some crazy ass project that was only going to be a money pit. A problem that we have now anyway.

But like I said the way you disscuse this and the way the original poster decided two are different, had he kept it civil I would not have asked who he was calling an asshole. Nothin I said was ment as a flame.

Orwell I respect your opinion and concur with much of it. And you are correct about the standing military. Throughout history they have been used agaisnt the people they were origionally made to protect. It is not the majority of the opinion here.

It blows my mind really, out of all people,  gun owners should be against the military the most. Just look at NO that whole situation has proven that the military or police (police in NO) will follow orders regardless of what they are. It is really simple, either eliminate that arm of force from the government or become enslaved. I would love to be able to say “I told you so” in 30 years, however I thirty years I’m sure that it will be illegal to say it. It amazes me how people refuse to learn from history and love to repeat it’s mistakes.

People are messing up the whole "standing army" and "militia" thing.

First up, remember that the writers of the Constitution knew just how badly the militia performed during the war. Most of them sucked. There's a reason that when Daniel Morgan retired during the war due to illness he told his successor that he needed the militia. And the only way to get them in line was to put some of his regulars behind them to shoot down the first man that ran. Not every militia was bad, but it varied. Also, you by and large couldn't get most militias to leave their home area. So if the Brits moved their troops, Washington had to move his regulars, and just hope to pick up more militia when he got where he was going.

So the writers knew two things
1)A standing professional army is dangerous.
2)A standing professional army is way better at fighting war than a militia.
(the Navy is basically ignored, 'cause it's hard to use a ship to oppress people since they don't live on the ocean).

So the setup we have is, gasp, another great compromise.

We have a standing Army, that has at least a two year budget. Congress controls the budget, which, as I said, keeps the Army from becoming a private fiefdom. So the Army is established as being under the Executive and Legislative branch. The Army is also kept fairly small (compare today's Army to WW2, or WW1).  So we have a small tightly controlled Army to keep it from discovering that they have a lot of power.

Except the founders knew that a small Army wouldn't be able to face all threats. This is where the militia and 2nd come in. In time of crises it allowes a large body of armed men to be quickly raised to supplemenet the standing army. You don't have a lot of wasted time finding people, they're already there. Of course, the militia can also be used to oppose a standing army if the need arises.

The clauses about the Army, and the settup of the milita do not oppose each, but largely complement. We have a small standing Army (to keep it from being dangerous), that is capable of becoming very very large if the need arises.

A lot of you guys think the two are permanantly opposed, and they aren't. That's not how it's set up.

Times have not changed that much. This setup works today as well as it would in the late 1700's.

double tap. Sorry.

So you are against sa standing army?

What would you suggest we do?  

I love it when people point out what they think are problems, but don't offer solutions for them.

Quoted: But like I said the way you disscuse this and the way the original poster decided two are different, had he kept it civil I would not have asked who he was calling an asshole. Nothin I said was ment as a flame.

Sorry, I wasn't aiming my flame comments at you.  It just looked like it was going to get nasty like stuff so often does here.


Also, I see your and Spade's point on this two and that does make some sense as well.

a lot of people here say that anything other than a standing military is useless. while i don't know all the in's-and-out's of it, it would seem to me that the swiss have done ok with their militias over the years.

yes, times have changed, and as noted this is also one of the top 10 arguments FOR gun control. that and the fact that we have standing military and military-type forces to protect us (army, navy, air force, police, fbi, atf, dea, etc.), so we don't really NEED guns.

and while i'm in this thread, i'd like to address the issue of Hitlery as president. if you think our guns are any safer with republican candidates like McCain and Giulini, you're dreaming.

ETA: if anyone is saying that our militaries will NOT be used to collect our guns after seeing what has happened in NO... well, that's just sad.

IBTL

Quoted: Orwell I respect your opinion and concur with much of it. And you are correct about the standing military. Throughout history they have been used agaisnt the people they were origionally made to protect. It is not the majority of the opinion here. It blows my mind really, out of all people,  gun owners should be against the military the most. Just look at NO that whole situation has proven that the military or police (police in NO) will follow orders regardless of what they are. It is really simple, either eliminate that arm of force from the government or become enslaved. I would love to be able to say “I told you so” in 30 years, however I thirty years I’m sure that it will be illegal to say it. It amazes me how people refuse to learn from history and love to repeat it’s mistakes.

Well at least you are out of the closet now.

I should be against people now shedding their blood for this country.

Please FOAD

Quoted: There's so much unconstitutional BULLSHIT out there that DOESN'T work to pick on, you'll forgive me if I give the boys in uniform a pass. Just wait until Hilary outlaws guns and that army is turned on you, there is a reason that the clause is in their, any army that can be turn on foreign powers can be turn on the people of it’s own nation. The proper way to defend a nation with decentralized private militia.

Ah, now the real reason for this thread comes out.  Tinfoil time.  

A decentralized PRIVATE militia?????????  WTF is a PRIVATE militia?

Yeah, a decentralized militia would have been just the ticket in WWII.

The extreme far right/left (they sound so similar, who can tell the diff?) has descended upon ARFCOM.

Quoted: This has probably been discussed in the past, however I would like all of you big government people out there to provide your arguments for why our government has intentionally violated the constitution by funding our army for a term greater than two years. The constitution does allow for constant funding of a Navy, however the funding of an army is explicitly prohibited for any term greater than two years. Article. I. Section. 8. Clause 12 The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Clause 13 The Congress shall have Power To provide and maintain a Navy; http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Even if your interpretation is right, do you have any doubt that if it was put to a vote for a constitutional amendment, it would sail through congress, the states, and the people with 90%+ support?  If so, you are getting bent out of shape over a technicality.  

Quoted: a lot of people here say that anything other than a standing military is useless. while i don't know all the in's-and-out's of it, it would seem to me that the swiss have done ok with their militias over the years.

The Swiss have the same set-up we technially do. Or are supposed to. The loss of the 2nd over the years has dilluted it.

Small standing Army. Large militia prepared to join the small standing Army to become a large standing Army.