I have a problem with this. The federalist papers are not the basis for all our laws; the constitution is. The wording of the Constitution states congress can effectively have a standing army, provided they fund it according to the rules (Every 2 years). Planes didn't exist when the constitution was written, but they do carry the same requirements of ships so I'm in agreement there. It's not ideal, I agree. I'd also venture to say that having a perpetually standing army starts getting into the "When all you have is a hammer..." spectrum quite rapidly. I admittedly am not a fan of it, but we do have an army that has not been disbanded in some time; there is also no requirement for congress to disband said army though, only to get the funding reapproved every two years. Technically, you would need an amendment to ban congress from having an army raised when a declaration of war does not exist, or something in that vein of specificity, to make what is happening unconstitutional. It may be at odds with what our founders wanted, but if our founders wanted the Federalist Papers to be our supreme law, they would have made them our constitution directly. The constitution was left with room for interpretation; that's why we have a superior court. The federalist papers do say: "...that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity..." <---From The Federalist No. 24 (
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed24.htm) This still implies that congress is reasonably within it's limitations; they get their approval every fiscal year for the funding of the military. Now, the argument could be made that most congressional officials have abused this provision to fund businesses they have a special interest in. However, the only reason these annual military budgets get cleared is because we keep voting in people that continue the status quo. As an extra bit of contemplation, the same paper I quoted before also acknowledges the need for perpetual garrisons on the western frontier to protect from "... the ravages and depredations of the Indians...". We had a VERY active army throughout our frontier phase. The founders did realize there may be a need for garrisoned troops when there was not active war. They included a provision for funding approval, under the assumption it would be enough to curb abuse of congressional power to raise an army.
true enough, you make solid points as always, but i am certain the founders had no inkling of the manner of insanity the military industrial complex would create, nor could they have envisioned more than half a century of constant war footing and the incredible expense we pay to garrison troops all around the world to protect other nations, so that in the end they dont even have to bother protecting themselves.
if forced to accept the responsibility of defending themselves from whatever threrat might arise, the entire EU would be in deeper shit than they are now, japan would be crapping cinderblocks over china and north korea's beligerance, and south korea would have to dump 20 - 40% of their GDP into defending the DMZ from the kims and their dreams of empire.
we have wound up footing the bill for the entire civilized world's military needs, and in return we get a fusillade of piss bottles and ropy streams of jism hurl at us at every turn.
and in the end the congress has pretty much just abbandoned the idea of actually making the constitutional amendments for their new powers, they just declare it to be so.
to ban booze, they felt the need for an amendment, but to ban weed, coke opium speed, mushrooms, peyote, lsd and pcp all they need is a bureaucrat's rubber stamp on the controlled substances act's No-No List.
to ban guns they find objectionable, they just need a federal law.
to put in place an income tax, the secretary of the treasury simply declares a contested amendment to the constitution (which is invalid as written) to be "In Force" and then he just starts taxing us instead of asking for the cash from the states.
to force states to accept some new mandate from washington all they need is to threaten to withhold the states own money since the federal government no longer gets it's money from the states...
to create the federal reserve bank (which is NOT authorized anywhere in the constitution...) all they need is a bill drafted in secret by the self-same money trust the bill purports to punish.
why even have a constitution if you can bend it into any shape the powers-that-be might desire.
thats why im taking a hard stance. if the constitution doesnt specifically allow it to the congress the congress cannot do it, for any reason at all.
