# Gen. Franks: Big terrorist attack -\> Constitution gone and martial law. Thoughts?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [November 29, 2003, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870 "2003-11-29T06:16:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/1 "2003-11-29T06:16:46Z")
This has been brought up on some other threads before, but finding none devoted to this topic, I thought I’d put it in a new thread.
[According to an interview in Cigar Aficionado magazine](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml)(?!?), Franks believes that should a WMD attack be carried out against the U.S. with large loss of life, that public pressure will cause the Constitution to fold, and a military form of government to be established:
> [@](#):
>
> “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
Of course, such a belief can either play into the hands of liberals or conservatives, depending on how you want to approach it. But I want to go into the realm of pie-in-the-sky speculation and ask, what do you think of the General’s belief? How likely do you think it is? Will all the forces that will inevitably oppose the start of such a slippery slope, whatever they may be, be enough? Considering that it’s at least somewhat likely that **some** WMD will hit the U.S. **someday** as long as anti-U.S. sentiment and terrorism exist (which is probably almost forever), does that mean that the nation is doomed (at least, if you believe as Franks does)?
Discuss.
---
### Author:  [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/2 "2003-11-29T06:22:57Z")
Hmm, let’s see. We have a Constitution that forces the Prez to go to Congress to get a Declaration of War, that limits any appropriation to a standing army to two years, and that envisions, taken as a whole, a nation principally defended by an organized militia - not an Army, a militia - under the supervision of Congress.
So this quote states that a general of the perpetual standing army that the Founders considered the principal threat to the liberty of the citizenry says that we might “begin to militarize the country.”
Too late. Already happened.
---
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/3 "2003-11-29T08:20:01Z")
I agree with pantom, but I think Franks is referring to the total breakdown of democracy.
I do think that nuke attack would create a rough situation, but not the end of American democracy. It would erode our civil rights for a few years, but I can 99.9% guarantee that no elections will be cancelled, and that eventually the restraints will be lifted.
I think more likely it will create a situation where all Muslims are interned like the Japanese-Americans were. It will also result in a draft because the US will be lopping off a few heads. No matter what, the US will not allow a second attack to take place.
---
### Author:  [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/4 "2003-11-29T08:24:34Z")
Much as I’d like to believe General Franks that our Constitution could be so easily shed, I’m afraid the pesky thing is much more resiliant than he gives it credit for. It has survived Civil War and Depression and it can survive large scale terror attacks as well. To see why you need to understand what our Constitution is. It’s not just the words written centuries ago in Philly by antidemocratic elitists and the formal amendments subsequently ratified. It is a set of traditions that form the basic law of America. Our Constitution survives because those traditions are malleable as the offical document is not. The formal amendment process is cumbersome but by changing our interpretations of the document our government remains adaptable enough to meet the needs of the day. During the Civil War the Constitution allowed a national income tax but by the end of the nineteenth century the income tax was unconstitutional. Before 1937 the New Deal was unconstitutional but we needed it to keep the nation together so the tradition changed. These changing traditions allow the Constitution to go on. Without this it would long ago have collapsed in on the seventeenth century assumptions it was built upon. So the Constitution isn’t going anywhere, massive terror threat or no.
Mind, I’m not saying that the militarization of American society is impossible. I think it’s unlikely but we could well move in that direction. I’m only saying that the Constitution is in no danger, not that society isn’t. If the day comes when we need to become militarized then that will be found to be perfectly constitutional.
**pantom** ’s objection is historically inaccurate. It was the opponents of the Constitution, those known as the “Antifederalists”, that favored militias over a professional army. Among the leaders of the “Federalists” were many of the former officers of the Continental Army ( in fact, membership in the Cinncinatti virtually guaranteed someone to be pro-Constitution ) And starting with General Washington they knew from bitter experience how unreliable militia formations could be on the battlefield. Garry Wills’ _A Necessary Evil_ covers this succinctly. In any case, the traditions have evolved over time. Back in the day the constitutionality of the national bank and the Louisiana Purchase was disputed. I don’t hear anyone today complaining that we haven’t turned over the middle third of the continental United States to France or the native tribes that had actually lived on those lands.
---
### Author:  [@myles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/myles)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/5 "2003-11-29T11:03:20Z")
I could see martial law being declared over a large part of the country, depending on the destruction caused.
Simply a macrocosmic example of the power Lincoln used to declare martial law over N.Y.
The impact would be pretty powerful, though.
Although, considering the type of attack we’re talking about, the impact was going to be immense anyway.
---
### Author:  [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/6 "2003-11-29T16:56:23Z")
I think the newsmax article is putting words in General Franks’ mouth.
What Gen. Franks says is this:
> [@](#):
>
> …– that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution.
And Newsmax turns it into this:
> [@](#):
>
> Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
and this:
> [@](#):
>
> He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.
When I think “military form of government”, I think Castro, Saddam, Hitler, General you-name-it with the rights of the people being whatever the general says they are.
From the scraps of the interview quoted in the article, I don’t think this is what Franks had in mind when he mentioned militarizing our country.
---
### Author:  [@gluteus\_maximus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gluteus_maximus)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/7 "2003-11-29T17:21:45Z")
Hey, Kids! Can you say “wishful thinking”?
Sure, you can!
---
### Author:  [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/8 "2003-11-29T19:56:27Z")
I posted the below once before, in a long thread about conservatism, and it got lost. More or less word for word, I’ll repeat it here. I’d like to know what about the below is historically inaccurate.
Ok, first links. To the Constitution: [http://www.usconstitution.net/](http://www.usconstitution.net/)
To the Federalist Papers: [http://thomas.loc.gov/home/fedpapers.html](http://thomas.loc.gov/home/fedpapers.html)
The first quote, which you can consider the theme of everything else I’ll be writing on this subject, comes from Federalist No. 8, Hamilton: “It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.”
Looking at the Constitution, the following clauses occur one after the other, in Section 8, the section that enumerates the powers of Congress:
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;
I remember seeing that and wondering what the possible significance could be of that automatic sunset provision for an Army. Highly peculiar. Until you realize that it exactly matches the term of a Congressman.
Looking at Federalist 26 we find this:
> [@](#):
>
> The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents.
Why, you ask? Well, as it turns out, the writers of the Constitution had a mortal fear of standing armies at the disposal of the Executive authority. From Federalist 26, again, we find this:
> [@](#):
>
> In England, for a long time after the Norman Conquest, the authority of the monarch was almost unlimited. Inroads were gradually made upon the prerogative, in favor of liberty, first by the barons, and afterwards by the people, till the greatest part of its most formidable pretensions became extinct. But it was not till the revolution in 1688, which elevated the Prince of Orange to the throne of Great Britain, that English liberty was completely triumphant. As incident to the undefined power of making war, an acknowledged prerogative of the crown, Charles II. had, by his own authority, kept on foot in time of peace a body of 5,000 regular troops. And this number James II. increased to 30,000; who were paid out of his civil list. At the revolution, to abolish the exercise of **so dangerous an authority** , it became an article of the Bill of Rights then framed, that ``the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, UNLESS WITH THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT, was against law.’’ …_ **From the same source, the people of America may be said to have derived an hereditary impression of danger to liberty, from standing armies in time of peace.** _
In other words, the intent of the sunset provision was to prevent permanent standing armies.
Continuing to the President’s authority as Commander in Chief, Hamilton sets the context of this power and defines its limits in Federalist 69:
> [@](#):
>
> The President is to be the ``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. He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT; to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME OF ADJOURNMENT, to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States.’’ In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.
In short, a President without the power to tax, without the power to declare war on his own, and without a permanent standing army, will have no power to wage war on his own. Automatically, under this structure, there is no need for a War Powers Act because the idea that the Executive could willy-nilly engage in hostilities whenever he felt like it would be a manifest absurdity.
Today the appropriation level for Defense is largely set by Presidential policy, the Congress frequently wants more money rather than less because Defense has become a subsidy program for large areas of the nation that are otherwise economically inert, and the sunset provision might as well be repealed for all the effect it has. This was never the intent of the Framers. Quoting from Federalist 26 one last time: “They [the Congress] are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, _ **if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.”** _
Remember, those words were written by a man who was an enthusiastic proponent of a strong central government.
That’s the end of it. Just to add to the above, Hamilton spilt major amounts of ink in The Federalist on this question. The clear sense is that
a) the principal defense was to be the militia.
b) Armies would be raised for defense as needed in times of emergency.
c) If a permanent, as opposed to a temporary and contingent, standing army was allowed, it would dangerously increase the authority of the President.
Which, of course, is exactly what has happened, now that we have a permanent standing army.
---
### Author:  [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/9 "2003-11-29T20:14:10Z")
I REALLY don’t think a WMD attack would cause the citizenry to question the Constitution.
I can see certain politicians taking advantage of an attack to abrogate our basic freedoms, sure. Less freedom for us, more power for those in power.
…but the citizenry is going to stand up, think, and say something like, “Gee, our Constitution can’t stop bullets, bombs, or WMDs. We should discard it, throw away all our renowned freedoms and rights, and get behind a military dictatorship of some sort?”
Maybe I’M the one doing the wishful thinking, but I just can’t see that. In a world where protesters burn houses because they’re too close to wilderness areas, and trade conferences can cause rioters to pulverize downtown Seattle, I think if anyone tried to suspend the Constitution, all friggin’ hell would break loose… unless, perhaps, we were subject to REGULAR WMD attacks from within our own population. I mean, none of this happened in or around NYC after 9/11, did it? And that’s as close as you can get to a WMD attack on American soil, so far…
---
### Author:  [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/10 "2003-11-29T20:15:02Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Franks: …that causes our _population_ to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.(italics added
Judging from 9/11, I would think that it is not the general population that has questioned the Constitution, but rather the government with its erosion and attempted erosion through the privacy-invading Patriot Acts and the imprisonment of individuals without charges or access to attorneys.
---
### Author:  [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/11 "2003-11-29T20:20:02Z")
Quite so.
And what I should have said was “…regular, recurring WMD attacks, perpetrated from within our own population.”
That’s the only thing I can see that might get the actual PEOPLE to question the Constitution.
And even then, I can’t see it going much further than it did in WWII – as in, interning the Muslims.
---
### Author:  [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/12 "2003-11-29T21:18:48Z")
\*\* pantom\*\*,
You, like so many before you, have failed to understand the nature of the Federalist Papers. These essays were not written for clarification but as persuasion. They are propaganda intended to gain support for the newly written Constitution. That Hamilton wrote a lot about the militia doesn’t indicate that he thought they were important; it indicates that he thought that those who weren’t already supporting the Constitution thought militias were important.
I am not objecting to your claim that the Constitution doesn’t confer to the Presidency the ability to unilaterally wage war. I agree that it doesn’t. What I am objecting to is that you are ascribing “Antifederal” beliefs to the “Federalists”. If most of the drafters of the Constitution had been afraid of a standing army they could have inserted a clause forbiding one in peacetime as “Antifederalist” delegates such as George Mason and Elbridge Gerry argued for.
---
### Author:  [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/13 "2003-11-29T21:36:25Z")
The two year sunset clause is in the Constitution as what then? A fig leaf for the pro-Federalist side to hide behind? Is that how they understood it, according to your belief?
I’d truly like to know, and I’d like to see some sources for your belief.
---
### Author:  [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)
#### Post date: [November 30, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/14 "2003-11-30T03:10:44Z")
Interr Muslims? Good luck then pulling off a Crusades X, which this time will be global.
Besides, how can we be sure that some messainic or so-called Christian cult, thinking “We should have pulled off a 9/11”, wouldn’t be behind the next big one.
---
### Author:  [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)
#### Post date: [November 30, 2003, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/15 "2003-11-30T03:20:31Z")
I don’t understand why you are asking that question. We agree as to why that clause was added, don’t we? Military appropriations must be reauthorized every 2 years because that is the term of office for Members of the House. In other words, it is a guarantee that military funding has to be approved by each successive Congress. But just in case here are [Twenty Nine Citations](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_12.html). Take your pick.
---
### Author:  [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)
#### Post date: [November 30, 2003, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/16 "2003-11-30T03:33:42Z")
The technical part of it isn’t why I was asking. The reason I asked is that it appears from your interpretation, far as I can tell, that it was put in there as a kind of compromise to keep the more radical folks on board, with no real expectation that it would have a restrictive effect. In other words, the Framers would have had no problem with there being a very large, permanent army. Is that what you’re contending?
I thought that’s what I was asking up there, but maybe I wasn’t clear.
---
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [November 30, 2003, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/17 "2003-11-30T13:16:36Z")
\*\*Interr Muslims? Good luck then pulling off a Crusades X, which this time will be global.
\*\*
If it ever came down to a war of civilizations, the war would last oh, an hour. Assuming that we were driven to the same psychotic rage that many Muslims have towards us. Getting nuked has a way of upsetting people.
**Besides, how can we be sure that some messainic or so-called Christian cult, thinking “We should have pulled off a 9/11”, wouldn’t be behind the next big one**
Can’t be ruled out, but it’s not very likely. What nation is going to give Christian terrorists a bomb, and don’t you think the US is far down their list of likely targets? THere are far more “godless” countries that oppress Christians to nail. Not to mention there simply aren’t as many psychotic Christians as there are Muslims at this point in history. Go back 500 years and you’d have a point.
---
### Author:  [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)
#### Post date: [November 30, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/18 "2003-11-30T22:16:53Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by pantom \*
> \*\*The reason I asked is that it appears from your interpretation, far as I can tell, that it was put in there as a kind of compromise to keep the more radical folks on board, with no real expectation that it would have a restrictive effect. \*\*
You seem to have misunderstood me. There was, and is, a restrictive effect. The restriction though is on the executive branch and not upon the federal government as a whole. The legislative branch is prevented from abdicating their responsibility to periodically oversee military funding. This is in no way a restriction upon a standing army. Instead it only restricts the executive’s ability to maintain one without congressional approval.
> [@](#):
>
> **In other words, the Framers would have had no problem with there being a very large, permanent army. Is that what you’re contending?**
I don’t pretend to know any eighteenth century figure’s opinion of twenty first century policy. Nor do I care. In my experience such “testimonials”, which conveniently support whichever side of a question the person offering them is on, are no more than cheap rhetorical tricks. My concern is accuracy within the historical context.
In your first post here your point was that the US is already militarized. Perhaps so but the history you offered to support that claim was flawed. I was just pointing that out. Besides, even if it wasn’t and the Founders did favor militias over standing armies they you still wouldn’t have a substantial argument. Just because some Dead White Guys would agree with you that America is militarized doesn’t mean that America is militarized. It’s all just opinion and no facts.
---
### Author:  [@owlofcreamcheese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlofcreamcheese)
#### Post date: [November 30, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/19 "2003-11-30T23:31:24Z")
‘big’ is relivent.
is big meaning “two 9/11 attacks in a day”? or does it mean “30 simaltanious nuclear explotions all over america”
I mean this question seems like a trick, based on the meaning of big. I feel most reasonable people could understand some form of martial law dureing a great enough crisis, if new york and LA disapeared in a flash on nuclear fire I can simpathize tightening down laws untill things are cleared.
I think people asking questions like this are hopeing to get someone they don’t like to admit that in some situations martial law would be good, so they can yell “AH HA!” and say that person wants to declare martial law for any minor thing.
---
### Author:  [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870/20 "2003-12-01T01:15:32Z")
Hmm, not real sure where to begin on this.
Yeah, it’s all opinion, but no facts? Nope, don’t think so.
First of all, at least one of the writers of the Federalist Papers agreed with the notion of inserting text into the Constitution that standing armies were dangerous to liberty:
> [@](#):
>
> Col: MASON, being sensible that an absolute prohibition of standing armies in time of peace might be unsafe, and wishing at the same time to insert something pointing out and guarding against the danger of them, moved to preface the clause (Art I sect. 8) “To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia &c” with the words" “And that the liberties of the people may be better secured against the danger of standing armies in time of peace” Mr. RANDOLPH 2ded. the motion
> **Mr. MADISON was in favor of it. It did not restrain Congress from establishing a military force in time of peace if found necessary; and as armies in time of peace are allowed on all hands to be an evil, it is well to discountenance them by the Constitution, as far as will consist with the essential power of the Govt. on that head.**
> Mr. Govr. MORRIS opposed the motion as setting a dishonorable mark of distinction on the military class of Citizens
> Mr. PINKNEY & Mr. BEDFORD concurred in the opposition. On the question
> N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Maryd. no Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. ay. [FN18]
So it’s incorrect to state that this was strictly an anti-Federalist position.
Secondly, from the tone of the writings in the Federalist Papers, and from the clause itself as written, it seems pretty clear that the majority of the population had the same idea re standing armies.
Thirdly, there is the history of the country to consider. From the National Guard’s website:
> [@](#):
>
> Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War.
As far as I know, and I’ll have to check this to be sure, the regular army remained small in times of peace all the way up to the Korean War. After that, the Army was maintained at a large size because the “lesson” learned from that war was to always have sufficient force on hand to fight another war like that one at a moment’s notice.
So an army of the size we currently have is a recent innovation, as is, not coincidentally, the innovation of Presidents feeling that they can send forces wherever in the world they feel like without constraint.
Legally, these Presidents are probably correct, too, since keeping a large Army is a de facto declaration of a permanent state of war.
That’s how the country’s been militarized, and I feel on pretty firm ground that this was not how it was supposed to be. Saying that this would simply be the opinion of a bunch of Dead White Guys is kind of silly; you can read the entire Constitution that way, I suppose. I suppose if you want to trash it, which is what the current situation is doing, you can, based on that rationalization. In which case, I suppose we should just declare Martial Law and be done with it, eh?
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gen-franks-big-terrorist-attack-constitution-gone-and-martial-law-thoughts/215870.md?page=2)