To quote myself responding to the same objection,
~Max
You are right, in an idealist Jeffersonian vision of the United States. If we were still a loose confederation of states each consisting of thousands of tiny independent self-sufficient farming communities, and we were on Amendment 52,345 - you’d have a point. But very early on these United States abandoned this view of governance and moved on from it. The Federal Government hasn’t behaved in the way you want it to since before the Civil War, and the United States would not have become a world power (or even stayed united) if it had tried to stick to this ideal.
My position has nothing against hybrid forces, just because the entire service doesn’t fit neatly into the constitutional categories of “Armies” vs “a Navy” doesn’t mean the act establishing the service is unconstitutional.
~Max
Ideally, yes. But realistically, taking politics into account, and to doing in a the time needed to address events as they arise? Probably not.
ETA: I guess that they could amend the constitution to repeal the 10th amendment and replace it with the government should have whatever powers it needs to address the needs of its citizens subject to the other provisions of the constitution and laws enacted by Congress. But i’m not sure that would sit well with you.
Well, clearly the United States at large doesn’t care whether the federal government is limited to enumerated powers. This is a rather arcane concept, although it was taught to me in primary school. A School House Rock video, I think.
And let’s not forget, the United States Air Force does actually exist.
~Max
Less sour than you may think. The British Parliament, by comparison, has plenary legislative power. As did many U.S. states, at least nearly plenary, before the 14th Amendment.
~Max
At the risk of threadshitting - and without any intent of such - what’s the point of this thread debate?
I can’t imagine any scenario under which the USAF is found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the government responds by announcing, “Bummer - guess we’ll have to scrap our F-22s, bombers, AWACS, tankers - all of it - then.”
All that might happen would be that the Air Force would simply be re-classified by the Pentagon as part of the Army or Navy, but with zero change in its actual fighting airpower, which then makes the whole debate rather moot and nothing but semantics. It would just be a name change.
Nope, the only parts of School house rock that touch on constitutional powers is the three ring circus which describes the roles of the three branches (without laying out the restrictions) and the preamble which describes all of the good things the government can do for us without getting as far as its restrictions.
Your answer is still not clear to me.
What in your mind constitutes a “separate chain of command”? If the top Air Force general were subordinate to the top Army general, would that be sufficient to make it a single chain of command, and hence constitutional? Or is there some specific organizational level above which Air Force unites couldn’t rise without you thinking their chain of command was separate?
I mean, we can infer from your answers that if a battalion had a squadron attached, that would be permissible. Could a division have an air group attached? Could an army have an air wing?
It sounds to me like you’re saying that it’s perfectly constitutional for the US Army to have all of the air assets of the Air Force, but in order to be constitutional they’d have to be broken up into bits and pieces and placed under the authority of Army officers. But from a practical perspective, it’s most convenient if the ‘under the authority of Army officers’ happens at a pretty high organizational level. Like say, having all or nearly all aerial assets under one command, and then have the officer in charge of that be under the command of the very top army dude. Which is exactly how the USAAF was set up. And the only thing that’s changed since then is that the top air force guy is now on the Joint Chiefs of Staff instead of answering to the top Army general. And they’re still same chain of command, because it’s still the Commander in Chief who calls the shots.
So, in spite of you having answered this question a couple times by talking about separate chains of command, I still don’t understand your answer.
Sorry, missed this (although maybe it is in a different topic). So, were the bombing raids on Germany and Japan unconstitutional? Fighters to shoot down German fighters/bombers that were attacking US troops and facilities?
If not, it really sounds like you are saying that if they put “Army” back into the name, it becomes constitutional?
I don’t have a dog in this fight: on questions of the American constitution, I’m a foreigner. My question is at the bottom of the post:
The function of army is occupation (the American army occupies America, to the exclusion of other occupying armies). A navy is extraterritorial: it occupies the sea. An airforce is extraterritorial: it occupies the air.
All branches have an overlap: armies can be sent outside to project power: navies can affect citizens in both territorial and international waters. An airforce is neither an army nor a navy, but, like marines, doesn’t do anything that is not within the shared idea of armies and navies. Except for being ‘in the air’.
Does the limitation of not being constitutional affect the civil aviation authority?
I’m not sure what you mean. If the airmen were part of the Army (not the militia) the president could order them to fly missions over Canada. I don’t understand how that answers my question. Is your objection that the Air Force is a separate branch of the military and that you feel it would be constitutional if it remained a branch subordinate to the Army command structure?
I wholeheartedly agree with this. The idea that we cannot use originalist theory to interpret the constitution because it would not allow for social security, interstate highways, and other things that are considered necessary for a modern society is easily answered by the amendment process. The founding fathers didn’t pretend to write the Bible. Each generation can amend that charter to meet current needs.
An amendment to give the feds power to construct interstate highways would pass unanimously in Congress and be ratified by 50 states within days. We should do that more instead of twisting the original constitution to say it does things that it doesn’t. But, it shouldn’t be such a harsh interpretation to say things like it doesn’t allow an Air Force when, IMHO, it clearly does.
My point there wasn’t that the USMC is a hybrid force. It’s that the USMC since the early days of the republic has been a separate force that’s neither an army nor a navy and is neither a component of the U.S. Army nor of the U.S. Navy (although it falls under the Department of the Navy for historical reasons). Like the Air Force, it’s not explicitly authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Yet none of the Founders seemed to have had any objection on Constitutional grounds to the establishment of a Marine Corps as a separate armed service.
Where have you been the last 13 years? If Washington, DC was on fire, our government couldn’t approve a bill to put it out
It came up in another topic, two actually.
~Max
I must have misremembered. But it was part of our class presentation about federal versus state government.
~Max
I would assume that the same reasoning that prevented the formation of the airforce would also preclude any national civil aviation authority. Each state would determine the laws that governed its own airspace, with hopefully some agreement between them to facilitate flying across state lines.
I want to be clear that the chain of command can’t be the bright line you think I’m making it. It’s one factor in deciding whether the air force currently maintained is necessary and proper for raising and supporting Armies (of land forces). Even if the entire federal military had no officers or commanders except the President, we would still have to decide whether it is constitutional or not.
If the air force is ultimately and bona fide subordinate to one or more armies of land forces, it is definitely incident to support armies of land forces. A definite subordinate chain of command would be a strong indicator that an air force is supporting the armies of land forces (or supporting a navy), and thus constitutional as necessary and proper for carrying into execution Congress’s power to support Armies (or a Navy).
As examples of air force operations that could be constitutional, I’ve mentioned recon, but transport, close air support, combat search & rescue would be too. So would training, stockpiling, etc. for such operations.
Come to think of it that covers most of what the USAF does… good on you for getting me to realize that.
The problems come into play when it comes to, for example, strategic bombing or, I guess, international engagements where we do not commit land or naval forces.
~Max
I think the USAAF was unconstitutional, too.
~Max
The U.S. Congress derives its authority to regulate civil aviation from the commerce clause (passenger planes constitute interstate commerce and Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce), so that would be unaffected.
~Max