We didn’t have an Air Force during WWII. The United States Air Force wasn’t established as an independent service until 1947. During WWII, it was a branch of the Army. So there’s no military reason for the Air Force to be an independent service; it showed it could function quite well as part of the Army.
But getting back to the OP, I feel that the existence of an independent Air Force is a reasonable interpretation of the text of the Constitution. Just like saying freedom of the press covers television news or that freedom of religion covers the Mormons. The basic principles are established by the Constitution and then we apply them to new situations that arise, such as the invention of flying machines and their use in warfare.
But they always are. Were it not for the aerial bombardment, it would be required that we send in ground troops to accomplish the mission. They are, in a sort, taking the place of ground troops. They provided support so well that ground troops were then not needed. And they are based on land when they do it.
Say Canada is mounting troops at the border, we fire artillery at them across the border, and they flee. Was that an unconstitutional action because we didn’t follow up with ground troops and used only projectiles that started on the ground, flew through the air, and landed back on the ground just like an airplane does?
I still don’t understand why the power to spend for the common Defence (sp) and all things necessary and proper to the same doesn’t just cover it straight up, with or without some convoluted explanation tying it to a land or naval force. Had Congress not been explicitly granted the power to raise an Army, it would still have the implicit power to do so under the same rationale (spending for the common Defence + Necessary & Proper = you can pay to raise an Army), and without the two-year limit to boot.
Then you have misread the Constitution (or rather read it in a way that runs counter to how it has long been interpreted). Article 1 Section 8 clause 1 is not only a taxing power, but a spending power. Specifically spending in furtherance of the general welfare or common “Defence.”
I disagree with this. That is only a taxing power, not a spending power.
What would be the purpose of listing everything else in Section 8 and having a Tenth Amendment if Congress simply had every and all power to spend for what it determined to be the “general welfare”? That reduces a lot of text to just two words.
Identifying in which spheres the federal government is supreme, of course. And enumerating its powers that extend beyond spending and taxing, such as to regulation.
Yeah, that was a brain freeze on my part. The objection is that they may spend, but not regulate under the general welfare clause. Congress can build a road with federal money, but if they want to regulate how the money is spent, it must comply with its limitations on power and other aspects of federalism. My bad.
I started skimming the thread when everyone began repeating their posts for the nth time, but I missed any comment on this.
Could you a) explain in what ways the federal government cannot regulate the military and b) if the controlling text is nowhere in the constitution itself, then how can you hold the government to the original wording in other cases?
I know you cited the two-years clause, but nothing in that inhibits complete regulation during that period. The discussion here talks about the meaning of support in that clause and, for good measure, cites an Attorney General ruling that applies to the Air Force.
I’m assuming you’re talking about the American court system’s rejection of the argument that polygamy was protected under the first amendment. This is true.
But as far as I know, nobody ever put forth the legal argument that the first amendment didn’t apply to Mormons because they didn’t exist in 1789.
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.
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 or Dissonance’s mention of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy.
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.
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.
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.
I had assumed so (and still do). I see now this opens up a wholly separate debate, and my example did not accurately convey my main point. Put aside the question of whether the President is allowed to order a militiaman to attack Quebec.
The important question is much simpler. If a group of soldiers is ordered to take a warship out for a day trip and bombard a foreign fortress, shall we refer to them as a land force? I say no, it is clearly a naval force.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that the Air Force is a land force because 1) a military force which operates on land is a land force, and 2) the Air Force operates on land (airmen eat and sleep on land, train on land, enter their vehicles on land).
My point is that eating, sleeping, training, and entering the vehicles of war on land is not sufficient to establish that force is a land force. The soldiers who take a ship out for a day trip, despite eating/sleeping/training/boarding their ship from land, comprise a naval force. They project military strength on the seas, even if only for a short period of time.
By analogy, airmen once taking the air are properly considered an air force, not a land force.
If somebody argues that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to fund military aircraft, does that mean Congress also does not have the authority to equip American soldiers with automatic weapons? Or motorized vehicles? Or any equipment that uses electronics? Or treat wounded soldiers with antibiotics?
As you mentioned, it is a hybrid. The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies and a navy. I consider the USMC to be part of the constitutional navy in some respects (such as when on ships) and an army in others (for example, when operating inland).
To clarify, whether or not the USMC is organized under a department named “Army” or “Navy” is completely unrelated to whether it falls under constitutional “Armies” or “a Navy”. The name of the department is actually not a factor at all. Branching armor into its own named service branch would be irrelevant to the constitution.
I cited the chain of command as a major factor, but not for determining whether a given military organization is a land or naval force, and not for determining if it is an “Army” or part of the “Navy” in Art. 1 sec. 8. The chain of command is a factor when deciding if the force is necessary and proper to raise/provide/support/maintain or maintain a constitutional “Army” or “Navy”.
If a force is not one of the constitutional “Armies”, and not part of the constitutional “Navy”, and not necessary&proper to raise/support/provide/maintain one of those, it is presumed unconstitutional.
So in the case of the Marine Corps, I cannot think of a scenario where they are not
part of the (constitutional) navy in their own right
For example, operating ships
acting as a (constitutional) army
For example, an overland expedition or occupying a city
directly supporting the (constitutional) navy
For example, flying over carriers
directly supporting a (constitutional) army
For example, their role in Operation Eagle Claw (the army would be Delta Force)
Flight started with the evolution of technology and became increasingly important in war. My understanding was the Air Force was originally part of the army, rendering it constitutional. With more evolution it became a separate branch. Don’t see the legal problem there.
I’ve got to say, at this point, I think I have less understanding of what your constitutional objections to the Air Force are than when this thread started.
I also don’t think I’m likely to get a clearer understanding.
In my defense, I have always thought of transport as allowable under necessary&proper for supporting an army. I said so explicitly in post #12, and I acknowledged early uses such as recon even in the OP.
The use of helicopter gunships as a modern shock cavalry is not something I would classify as a land force. And I wouldn’t consider a mass of gunships to be one of the “Armies” Congress can raise/support under Art. I sec. 8.
If the gunships are used as a shock force in conjunction with conventional land or naval forces, the gunships could be considered a form of support not unlike close tactical air support or artillery. If they are used not only for shock value but also to deploy infantry on the ground, then I would argue the air force component is acting as a means for the land force (to take an objective); another form of support not unlike purely transport.
The only issue I can think of is, for example, sending out attack helicopters independent of any land or sea operation, maybe in lieu of strategic bombing. I can’t think of any such instances off the top of my head, or the advantage of doing so when we have bombers.
It is my opinion. They primarily provide close air support, anti-tank capabilities, and support for transport craft. On their own, a mass of attack helicopters is hardly a land force.
