That quote may say that, but the decision itself was notable for two things- establishing that the “Necessary and Proper” clause gives the Federal government certain implied powers that aren’t explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and that the Federal government is supreme over the states.
In particular, that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave Congress the power to establish a national bank despite it not being explictly enumerated in the Constitution.
No, it doesn’t. It is a statement of intent and not a recognized grant of power. See also the mandatory vaccine case, can’t remember the name atm. but it was explicit that the preamble is not a grant of power.
And I argue here that the USAF is not necessary and proper for raising or supporting an army, nor for regulating the land and naval forces. Necessary and proper isn’t a blank check, it is a grant of power, the federal government as a whole is still one limited to enumerated powers.
I think this falls under the rubric of “The constitution is not a suicide pact”. A strict reading of the constitution may allow for an increase in legal consistency, but it is an absolutely lousy way to run the country.
The constitution isn’t some holy document that defines the perfect country such that all things that are constitutional are good, and all things that aren’t constitutional are bad, it is just the best solution that a few dozen people came up with some 230 years ago that they could all agree on, plus a few tweaks through the ages that were temporarily broadly popular enough to get through.
I’m trying to envisage a version of how a Liberitarian America would look in which we didn’t fudge the 10th amendment with the commerce clause. So no highway system, no internet, no social security, no FDA, no EPA, no federally funded scientific research etc. What I come up with is a Balkanized backwater of states with various different mismatched programs squabbling with each other in a race to the bottom. Why should one state unilaterally control toxic river runoff when it will just cause companies to relocate to a more lax state upstream? Meanwhile we fall further and further behind countries with more flexible constitutions, that actually allow them to adapt to the needs of their citizens.
But it’s just a name. Wikipedia tells me that a modern aircraft carrier has ship’s captain and an air wing commander who are the same rank and report to the Battle Group commander. Presumably, the squadron leaders report to the CAG, and the pilots report to the squadron leaders. They have their own aviation-oriented chain of command. So do the ship’s nautical-oriented personnel. (So, I gather do the escort ships – a third separate chain of command).
I don’t know if any of that is a good way to do it. But I see no reason that would be impermissible if the CAG changed his clothes from khaki to blue. And setting aside that the unified combatant commands are a pretty direct analogy, as long as the chain of command leads to the President, I don’t see how the name matters.
If we can have a Department of Naval Affairs with a “Surface Forces Division” and a “Air Forces Division” then we can have a Navy Department and a Air Force Department. (But I don’t think the constitution really requires any of these things bureaucratically).
Did the authors of the Constitution specify “army and navy” because they wanted to make sure that only those two types of military force could be raised by the government? Or did they use that phrase to mean, “military stuff in general?”
If, in 1947, Harry Truman had authorized the creation of a “sky navy” instead of an “air force,” would that have resolved the constitutional problem?
Constitutionally, “army” does not mean an organization of foot and mounted troops. And “navy” does not mean an organization of water-borne troops. It’s nonsensical to reject troops that are airborne, or motorized, or underwater-borne because of the conveyances used.
But other than the President being the commander of all forces, the Constitution doesn’t require the military to be organized in any particular way. We could have multiple separate commands. That is what makes the Coast Guard constitutional–it’s a navy separate from the Navy. And the Marine Corps–it’s a hybrid navy and army separate from the Navy and the Army. And the Air Force is an army separate from the Army.
I agree with your larger point, but as this is the SDMB, a nitpick:
The Army is a hybrid army, navy, marine force, and air force, that’s mostly an army. The Marine Corp is a hybrid army, marine force, and air force, that’s mostly an army. The Navy is a hybrid navy, air force, marine force, and navy that’s mostly a navy. The Air Force is a hybrid air force and army that’s mostly an air force.
You should apply the right definition ot “to raise” (see points 3 b, 3 c, 3 d and 10) Problem solved.
Here you can see a submarine trying. Spectacular. Now I hope an aircraft carrier tries the same manouver. Imagine an aircraft carrier that did no longer need the planes!
If the litteralists go down to the last consequence, machine guns, atomic bombs and tanks will be inconstitutional too. Which would not necessarily be a bad thing, but other nations might take advantage of the USA by still using them.
Since people talk “original intent” all the time, it should be pretty evident that if the Founding Fathers had any concept of an air force at the time, they would have included air force in the document, with army, navy, etc. At least, that’s what I would guess SCOTUS would rule if such a case ever came up before them.
Speaking of which, I can’t help but be reminded of Trump’s gaffe in which he said that the American revolutionaries “seized the airports” in the 1770s.
Yes, but we do not look to such activities. Until the militia was federalized, the President didn’t have authority to call them into service in foreign theatres - surely you agree such a limitation would have applied to (hypothetical) airmen stationed in domestic bases, with missions to fly over Canada.
I suspect you still misunderstand me, it is not merely the use of aircraft that disqualifies an organized military operation from constitutional Armies/land forces (or a Navy/naval forces). For example, I would say the famous 101st Airborne is constitutional as necessary and proper to raising and supporting Armies.
The battle group is, I assume, a carrier group acting as a naval force (for constitutional purposes). So the entire air command within that group is part of a larger and distinctly naval force. It doesn’t matter if the squadrons are technically named (by Congress) “Navy” or “Army” or “Air”. The name of the department is totally unrelated to the constitution.
Was it constitutional to have the United States Army Air Corps from 1926 to 1941, or the United States Army Air Forces from 1941 until 1947? Because if they were, then taking “Army” out of the name is just semantics.
Clearly a distinction is made. Congress is specifically prohibited from making appropriations to raise and support Armies for terms of more than two years. Conceivably, it makes sense that the navy is set apart from the army - you aren’t going to raise a new fleet every two years.
I agreed with everything you wrote, up to this point. If the constitution had not made a distinction between armies and a navy, I might agree with you here. But the distinction is made, and as a result I do not think “Armies” and “land” force are such broad terms as to include the Air Force.
That, and unlike a standing army, a standing navy isn’t quite as useful as an occupation force or enforcement arm of a tyrannical government, which were rather recent concerns of the Founders…
But, on the other hand, the U.S. Marine Corps has been a separate service since shortly after the Constitution was enacted, and it’s not mentioned in that document. You could argue it was part of the Navy, or counts as an army. But it’s not really quite either, and the Founders clearly thought it was authorized by the Constitution despite not being explicitly allowed for.
Imagine an aircraft carrier that did no longer need the planes!