# The United States Air Force is unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2021, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-air-force-is-unconstitutional/947441 "2021-07-27T18:31:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 92
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2021, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-air-force-is-unconstitutional/947441/92 "2021-07-29T17:04:19Z")
Something I missed, > [@Falchion](#): > > What is a “naval” force? What is a naval function? Where do you go to look for that? Naval, in this context, refers to seafaring. You look at the ordinary meaning of “naval” at the time the provision was adopted (1789). A naval force would be a military force equipped for war at sea. > [@Falchion](#): > > Similarly, what is a “army” force? What is an “army” function? An army is as you say, a collection of armed individuals. The definition of “army” (or “Armies”) does not necessarily imply that it operates on land. My interpretation of the constitution limiting Congress to earthbound and seabound forces is based on two things: - The fact that “Armies” are contrasted with “a Navy”. As a principle of statutory construction, distinguishing the two terms in the same section of the same article strongly implies that “Armies” does not encompass “a Navy”. Thus its use here is more specific than the ordinary meaning. This is my defense against, for example, **JRDelirious** ’s [mention of France’s _Armeé de l’Air_](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-air-force-is-unconstitutional/947441/34) or **Dissonance** ’s [mention of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-air-force-is-unconstitutional/947441/76). - The very next clause, Congress is granted the power “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces”. I interpret this provision as being related to the previous two clauses allowing for “Armies” and “a Navy”, respectively. “Armies” are land forces, and “a Navy” is comprised of naval forces. > [@Falchion](#): > > Relatedly, do you make anything of the fact that the constitution allows for “a navy” (singular) but “armies” (plural). The term “navy” at the time referred to the entire assemblage of warships belonging to a nation - the USCG and the USN belong to a single constitutional “Navy” of the United States. > [@Falchion](#): > > I would understand (but disagree) if you said that the constitution prohibited all air or space forces. But you don’t say that: you concede an aviation force is properly an “army” or “navy”. I would argue that the constitution prohibited all air or space forces, if that document did not include a clause granting Congress all powers necessary and proper for carrying into execution other enumerated powers. Likewise I do not concede that an aviation force is properly an “army” or “navy” - only that air power _can be_ necessary and proper for support of land and naval forces. ~Max --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-air-force-is-unconstitutional/947441)._