What is the sense of having article 1 section 8 if you can just ignore it after two years?

Question

This is in reference to Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution! So all of you war mongers believe that you just start over again at the end of the two years! This would make the limit and cut off meaningless! The Constitution is the law of the land and it states that you can't fund armies longer than two years without an Amendment! Where is the court,and why isn't this being applied? Help me to understand why!

Section 8 refers to armies, not wars! And when you can't finance the armies you can't make war! This portion of the Constitution is very straight forward. It must be applied regardless what the finance committee or appropriations desires! To get further funding of any armies the courts must rule on this! The only way to avoid this, is to have an Amendment,and that's not likely at this time!

The creators of this nation placed this here to limit those that wish to have perpetual war making authority, just like the pos that currently inhabits the White House!

I wish some attorney with the resources would push this for what it's worth and demand that it would be implemented!

Answer 1

They do appropriations for shorter periods that the 2 years and vote on it again, like about every 6 months or so it seems.

Answer 2

Here is what it states:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Now, once again, that means they can fund it for two years. At the end of two years, they can fund the army again. I see you have trouble understanding this fact, but it is really quite simple. It makes no mention of wars, merely budgets. We make a budget every year, so we fund on a yearly basis, sometimes more often. This section was also made up 200 years ago when the thought was that america did not need a "standing army" like eurpean nations. I suggest you read up on history a bit before taking things way out of context. We have had a full time army in this country since the beggining, through all sorts of Presidents. We have fought wars lasting longer than two years. I'm sure somewhere during the past 200 plus years, someone else would have read article 1, section 8 and said...hold on...if what you seem to believe is true. You are wrong, you are reading the section wrong and you seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means and what appropriation means. You have asked this question several times, written about it in a few of you answers and you look ignorant at this point. Do you think you are the smartest person in 200 plus years and nobody else but YOU has seen this? Not all the supreme court justices, congressman and legal scholars who have devoted their lives to constitutional law? You are aware that law schools have entire courses and departments on constitutional law? Do you not think one of them noticed this? They did and understand it, unlike you.
Give it a rest.

Answer 3

Each year the Congress passes the Defense Appropriations Act. That is money needed to continue operations and maintenance of the Department of Defense and the various military branches. In current times they also authorize supplemental appropriations to assist the military in enforcing the intent of Public Law #107-40 (Military Authorization to Combat Terrorism) and Public Law #107-243 (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq).
No amendment to the Constitution is needed since the appropriations for the Defense Department are only good for the length of one fiscal year. Should they fail to re-appropriate that money, we would then shut down the Defense Department and the component military services and folks like you would be able to fend for themselves when the Salafist Jihadists decide to attack this country again. Despite what you may think, the wisdom of Dean Rusk (Secretary of State under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson) rings especially true today: "While we're asleep, one half the world is up to some kind of mischief".

Answer 4

Congress and the Senate already voted for the war in Iraq. This would fulfill the requirements of the constitution.

Basically, the President can go to war at any time without Congressional approval if the war will not last more than 30 days just like what happened at Grenada and the air strike to Libya during President Reagan's tenure.

Answer 5

The House and Senate under Clinton proved there is no rule of law and that set a precedence now there is no rule of law.


Have nice day.

Answer 6

I think you should take more care in your reading. Read the whole thing. I think your trying to make it say what you want it to say to fit your agenda.
good luck