Maintaining a military - against the Constitution?

Question

I think what we're seeing happening today is affirmation of the anti-Federalists concern that an established federal military becomes corrupt and too overpowering despite the Bill of Rights.

The constitution only condones the maintenance of "a well regulated militia" comprised of citizens - not a group of people who are stripped of their rights to join a federally organized group.

Taxes paid toward military expenditures are therefore against the Constitution of the United States and therefore companies like Halliburton are anti-Constitution and anti-American.

Question: does it come as a surprise to anyone that this administration is firmly anti-American and anti-Constitution?

Answer 1

Very good question. It's a scary thought. We the people must not allow this kind of thing to happen.

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfield and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States.

They should all be put behind bars long ago. I believe they will get what's coming to them...sooner or later.

Answer 2

"I think what we're seeing happening today is affirmation of the anti-Federalists concern that an established federal military becomes corrupt and too overpowering despite the Bill of Rights."

Dude, our military is anything but corrupt. Don't believe me? Open a history book and start doing some comparisons...

"The constitution only condones the maintenance of "a well regulated militia" comprised of citizens - not a group of people who are stripped of their rights to join a federally organized group."

And the military is not a well regulated militia comprised of citizens? How?

"Taxes paid toward military expenditures are therefore against the Constitution of the United States and therefore companies like Halliburton are anti-Constitution and anti-American."

Halliburton does way more than just work with the military, I suggest you look into that as well.

You're retarded if you think we should disband our military. Every state in history has had a military to protect themselves, and we've got a lot of enemies. Disbanding our military is like signing America's death sentence.

Answer 3

Here you go. From Article 1, Section 8 entitled Legislative Powers and I quote:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

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 2, Section 2 - Executive Powers, again direct quote only.

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

So, why would the framers specifically state that the President shall be the commander in chief of the Army and Navy if there was not to be one? That does not make very much sense now, does it? Further, why would they give the congress the power to raise and maintain a navy, specifically, if there was to be no military? What about the Army as well...remember the part about "To raise and support armies"

Perhaps you should try to read the document before you try to have a conversation regarding said document.

Answer 4

Yes, it is not mentioned in the Constitution. There should have been an Amendment to specifically fund a standing Army, because the military necessity of a large standing army was not something they foresaw in the 18th century, but which is imperative today.

Military expenditures, per se, are not contrary to the Constitution, however, because military action is a DUTY of the government.

If you're so concerned about Constitutional spending, why aren't you talking about Social Security, welfare, Medicare, Dept of Labor, Dept of Education, Dept of HHS, etc, etc? None of those are even mentioned, and therefore a gross violation of the Constitution. Huh?

Answer 5

You have missed several sections of the Constitution.

Try reading Article 1 Section 8, which empowers Congress:

# 11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:
# 12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
# 13. To provide and maintain a navy:
# 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
# 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

Answer 6

So, just this administration had a military, huh? I debate that. If what you assert about a Federal Military is true, then EVERY administration, going back to the beginning was "firmly anti-American and anti-Constitution."

Answer 7

The Tea social gathering for the main area helps the militia, yet that would not recommend they help wasteful militia spending. They oppose wasteful spending around the board, alongside with bailouts, expansion of government and different forms of greater spending. the reason Republicans detrimental the unemployment extension became because of the fact they demanded cuts in different aspects to pay for it, however the Democrats only pounded it by devoid of investment it responsibly, even nevertheless we gained't arise with the money for it. the government is loaded with people who earnings on it to tutor a earnings. check out each and each of the international warming scaremongering happening and eco-friendly ability projects being started. isn't it curious that many of the folk related to the Democrats are completely aligned to make hundreds of thousands if no longer billions of greenbacks on all of those eco-friendly projects they have compelled on us? the two the Democrats and Republicans do it, however the Tea social gathering is detrimental to every physique who exploits their place for earnings.

Answer 8

The soldiers, sailors, and Marines are citizens of the United States of America and by there own choice they join the military to serve and protect this wonderful nation that we call home.

Answer 9

If it is than every president including George Washington violated the Constitution.

Answer 10

So is offering amnesty to immigrants under the guise of the American dream when in fact they are brought to bear as only assets to borrow against. Its not only votes or cheap labor they want them for people. Each one of us at birth are valued at $1,000,000 that this incorporated municipal government uses to borrow money against. Wake the He11 up!!!!!