This is not my objection. Reorganizing the USAF back into the USAAF would not make it constitutional.
The point was that you are looking at what happens before the mission starts - the airman sleeps and eats on the ground and is therefore a land force. With that logic President Madison could order a Massachussets militiaman to sail from Chicago, down St. Lawrence, and bombard Quebec, under the provision allowing the President to call forth the militia to repel invasions. (not sure if you could sail there and back so fast in 1812 but still)
What is a “naval” force? What is a naval function? Where do you go to look for that?
Similarly, what is a “army” force? What is an “army” function?
Relatedly, do you make anything of the fact that the constitution allows for “a navy” (singular) but “armies” (plural). What are “armies”? Eytmologically, they’re just collections of armed individuals (with no inherent limitation to land or sky or space). A sea army is an armada, but navy probably does imply nautical.
I don’t find your argument particularly coherent. 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”. And if that’s fine, then I really don’t see how what it’s called or the civilian bureaucratic structure.
You know with hindsight that the construction of the national highway system turned out to be a really good idea
You accept the idea that large public works projects are within the purview of the federal government.
If we retained the strict constitutionalist mindset that the federal government’s powers extended only to those innumerated in the constitution, and then passed around an idea of the federal government collecting taxes to build roads, you would meet with questions about why we don’t just leave it up to the states the same way we do with everything else? A strict constitutionalist America would basically be something like the EU with states instead of countries, and with a NATO like defense pact.
And here I thought this was going to be some sort of reductio ad absurdem, because of course it’s absolutely absurd to argue that the Air Force is unconstitutional.
Over a century of history disagrees with you. No military without a significant air element can ever win any battle, since airplanes were invented. Having an air force, in some form, is a necessary component of having a military at all.
This. One cannot have an effective army without effective air power.
@Max_S. I’m still attempting to understand. What is your specific constitutional objection to an Air Force? It’s not that they are not under Army command. It is not that airplanes are used. I got that.
Are you saying that it is not a “land” force? If so, how do you reconcile that with your position that the 101st Airborne is okay?
President Madison cannot order a MA militiaman to do anything until he federalizes the militia to repel invasions. If he does so, then he certainly could order the militiaman to bombard Quebec (if we are assuming that Quebec is the base of the invasion and we are attacking Quebec to beat back the invasion).
ETA: Or are you arguing that the militiaman can only “repel” an invasion and that attacking Quebec is an offensive action and not a repel of an enemy action?
AETA: Or in your hypo did Canada not invade us at all?
So what do you see as being the critical difference? A corps of marines is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is neither an army nor a navy. It is not and never was a part of the Army. It was for some purposes subsidiary to the Navy, but since its formal founding in 1798 it’s been a separate service, with its own chain of command. Why is the USMC constitutional, but the USAF unconstitutional?
On a different tack, do you think Congress has the power under the Constitution to split off the Armor Branch of the U.S. Army as separate military service, the Armor Force?
Since the Constitution clearly and specifically gives Congress the authority to raise and support armies, the unified Department of the Army is clearly an unconstitutional abomination and I fully expect the Supreme Court to break it up into a series of smaller armies forthwith.
The power to build roads is already given to Congress quite explicitly… a couple sentences before the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise Armies.
This is particularly absurd; you see the raising and maintaining of the 101st Airborne Division as perfectly constitutional but the means of its deployment and reason for being, transport aircraft initially as part of the USAAC and later the USAF as unconstitutional. It becomes even more absurd when you consider that the 101st Airborne has been organized as an air assault division since the 1960s, meaning its soldiers no longer jump out of airplanes but are transported in battle in helicopters that are an organic part of the division itself, something clearly unconstitutional according to you. Lets not even start on the fact that every division in the modern US Army has helicopters as part of its organization for attack, reconnaissance, and utility purposes or that the Army operates fixed wing aircraft as well.
ETA: Or perhaps ‘was’ unconstitutional in your prior view seeing how far you have backpedaled your constitutional objections.
Why don’t you view this as the Army, or a land force, using a piece of technology to attack?
If we go to war with Canada, you wouldn’t believe that rockets fired from Buffalo and landing in Toronto to be unconstitutional? If not, then why would the fact that it is a “manned rocket” (an airplane) make a constitutional difference?
Elaborating on that, if the USAF switched entirely over to drones - meaning that the pilots spent all their time on the ground, and didn’t personally fly at all - would that make the Air Force constitutional?
I participated in a successful seance and connected to Ben Franklin. It gave me an opportunity to tell him about all of the arguments we are having about the Constitution, what it means, and how to interpret it exactly as they meant it to be interpreted. I was surprised by the rancor of his response: “Can’t you people consider how much things have changed over time and apply the spirit of the Constitution accordingly?! Are we supposed to come back from the dead and do it for you?!”
The question is whether they are providing support to land/naval forces.
If you look at the 101st Airborne in WWII, their famous D-Day parachutes and gliders were clearly in support of the amphibious assault. Or in the Iraq war, the 101st division was either supporting land forces (eg: the 3rd division) or it was itself a land force (eg: occupying Mosul, raiding the Hussein sons). Even in the helicopter assault at Karbala, where the helicopters provided most of the firepower, you can’t take a city with gunships - they ferried in three battalions of foot-soldiers.
