Is the air-force unconstitutional?

[Wiggen]

The constitution specifically gives congress the power to provide for armies and a navy, but for obvious reasons, it doesn't mention an air force. If they had instead been a bit more vague and said "provide for a military", it would get around this problem. I'm sure if air fighters were available at the time, the constitution would have addressed it, but they weren't and so it didn't. Considering that a lot of the founding fathers didn't even like the idea of a standing army, do you think they would have wanted us to amend the constitution in order to provided for an air-force or do you think the consensus would have been that the constitutional already allows for an air-force in spirit so amending would be unnecessary?

Really stupid of those framers not to provide for an Air Force. Or a Marine Corps for that matter. Almost as dumb as this thread

 

[Master PO]

The Constitution provides for the common defense, and the air force is part of the executive branch. It does that depts. of the executive can be created. The power to give individual citizen money is not provided for. But what do you care, your type doesn't like the Constitution anyway....drafted by rich, white, slaveowners.

the problem with that is the constitution does not say departments can be created by congressional powers.

america was created with 4 departments and now we have 15, by the creation of departments this expands government, which the founds sought to limit.

in 1947 the congress and the states would have no problem creating an amendment to our constitution, for the creation of the USAF, however they dont follow the constitution for its proper amending.

 

[Trip]

A wonderful paradox for the literalists and tea party cranks who think that the Constitution has to mention something for it to apply. Hence their crank attacks on welfare and food stamps, etc.

Excellent point! It's fun to watch them spin!

Contrary to your claim, ... even what is not directly "mentioned" by the constitution, is addressed under the terms of the Constitution.


Those powers that are not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, or specifically denied to the States in the Constitution, continue to reside with the States or the people, as per the 10th Amendment.

Among those enumerated powers recognized to Congress, the first one listed is only applicable to "taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises".

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

In brief, the purpose those taxes and other sources of revenue, are to pay for the legitimate enumerated powers of government, that do follow. Congress does not have the power to tax for whatever reason, but rather only "to pay the debts" acquired in its legitimate duties. Under these terms, nowhere is it legitimate to tax carbon output, because some deem it a necessary social engineering agenda to benefit society.

Nowhere in the above is the there any reference to any sort of "common defense" or "general Welfare" as these being overall powers. In fact what is applicable under that "common defense" and "general Welfare" is indicated among the powers that follow.

The "common defense" is covered by the subsequently referenced powers involving the specific reference to militia and armies, and navy, and is nothing but a general reference for those specific references which follow.

And the "general Welfare" covers other areas, beyond common defense, which are necessary for the maintenance of a civil society, more specifically relating to regulating commerce, establishment of post offices, borrowing money, creating tribunals <courts>, laws regarding counterfeiting and bankruptcy, and other details.

In referencing "common defense and general Welfare", the collective phrasing is addressing all the powers that follow, and not creating powers unto themselves, and these are to be the sole purpose of taxation, duties, etc.

Nowhere does the "general Welfare" involve handouts, nor redistribution of wealth, nor the ability to dictate the terms of society <Social Engineering>, nor to create a superior set of federal laws superseding the State's laws, nor to dictate health care and compel health care insurance.

All of these, and more, are nothing but gross corruptions of the Constitution, flagrantly unconstitutional - and undeniable evidence of a tyrannous, illegitimate government.

 

[head of joaquin]

Contrary to your claim, ... even what is not directly "mentioned" by the constitution, is addressed under the terms of the Constitution.
.

Psssst: it's not my point. It's tea party crank hermeneutics. No serious Constitutional scholar is worried about welfare, food stamps, and the NIH being constitutional. It's just another bizarre conservative obsession. See Ernst's posts above.

 

[head of joaquin]

the constitution does setup a procedure for its amending, however can show be where the constitution has been amended to give the federal government more powers.

Focus, focus. We're talking about Art 3 powers. Focus.

 

[Master PO]

Focus, focus. We're talking about Art 3 powers. Focus.

since i am not aS smart as you profess to be, why dont you explain the powers in article 3 which allows for department sanctioning.

i know you like to think of the USSC as GOD, when it comes to the constitution, but they also must stay within its confines.

 

[Trip]

Psssst: it's not my point. It's tea party crank hermeneutics. No serious Constitutional scholar is worried about welfare, food stamps, and the NIH being constitutional. It's just another bizarre conservative obsession. See Ernst's posts above.

No serious constitutional scholar can argue that "general welfare" equates with personal welfare handouts, nor that food stamps and NIH are constitutional. There is no constitutional authority for any of this, and great constitutional prohibitions against it.


This is not some contemporary obsession reserved to only Conservatives, but rather was the unanimous obsession of this nation's Founder's to preserve EVERY CITIZEN's freedoms!

Those Founders experienced themselves every aspect of tyrannous government, and knew the means those tyrannies are claimed and exercised, thereby instituting a form of government having only limited enumerated powers, intending to cover only what the individual States themselves could not each do. And that's it!

If states themselves want to issue food stamps, from the stolen property of their constituents, then they may do that, and those legislators may suffer the wrath of those constituents, but the federal government does not have the legitimate authority to do any of this.

Psst! your point has no support in the Constitution.

 

[Master PO]

Psssst: it's not my point. It's tea party crank hermeneutics. No serious Constitutional scholar is worried about welfare, food stamps, and the NIH being constitutional. It's just another bizarre conservative obsession. See Ernst's posts above.

no serious constitutional scholar!

[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

James Madison: speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794



“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

― James Madison

 

[Surtr]

The constitution specifically gives congress the power to provide for armies and a navy, but for obvious reasons, it doesn't mention an air force. If they had instead been a bit more vague and said "provide for a military", it would get around this problem. I'm sure if air fighters were available at the time, the constitution would have addressed it, but they weren't and so it didn't. Considering that a lot of the founding fathers didn't even like the idea of a standing army, do you think they would have wanted us to amend the constitution in order to provided for an air-force or do you think the consensus would have been that the constitutional already allows for an air-force in spirit so amending would be unnecessary?

They didn't add the Marines in there either, and they were around when the Constitution was written.

 

[captainawesome]

no serious constitutional scholar!

[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

James Madison: speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794



“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

― James Madison

Charity is theft, but slavery ok. Lol Madison was a douche.

 

[Master PO]

Charity is theft, but slavery ok. Lol Madison was a douche.

no slavery in the constitution.

 

[captainawesome]

no slavery in the constitution.

Lol sure that's why we had to amend the Constitution to end slavery.

 

[Goshin]

Technically speaking, it is not specifically authorized as a seperate military branch explicitly in the Constitution, so it is at least questionable.


Folding it back into the Army and Navy would make the questionable go away. Or passing an Amendment.



BUT.... y'know there are so MANY other Constitutionally-questionable things our gov't does that I'd want to see addressed LONG before we bothered to ask THIS question that I don't really care right now...

 

[captainawesome]

No serious constitutional scholar can argue that "general welfare" equates with personal welfare handouts, nor that food stamps and NIH are constitutional. There is no constitutional authority for any of this, and great constitutional prohibitions against it.


This is not some contemporary obsession reserved to only Conservatives, but rather was the unanimous obsession of this nation's Founder's to preserve EVERY CITIZEN's freedoms!

Those Founders experienced themselves every aspect of tyrannous government, and knew the means those tyrannies are claimed and exercised, thereby instituting a form of government having only limited enumerated powers, intending to cover only what the individual States themselves could not each do. And that's it!

If states themselves want to issue food stamps, from the stolen property of their constituents, then they may do that, and those legislators may suffer the wrath of those constituents, but the federal government does not have the legitimate authority to do any of this.

Psst! your point has no support in the Constitution.

The founders were only concerned with the liberty of rich white men. All others were second class.

They had no true value of liberty.

 

[Master PO]

Lol sure that's why we had to amend the Constitution to end slavery.

if you would read your history, and stop looking at early america ,as you would look at today, you would gain some understanding.

slaves were considered property and not people at that time, ....is that a stupid position?...yes.

however that is the way things were and there is no changing them.

when your in your grave, your going to be criticized, for the things you and i and the rest of the population did today.

 

[captainawesome]

if you would read your history, and stop looking at early america ,as you would look at today, you would gain some understanding.

slaves were considered property and not people at that time, ....is that a stupid position?...yes.

however that is the way things were and there is no changing them.

when your in your grave, your going to be criticized, for the things you and i and the rest of the population did today.

Slaves were humans and people knew it.

They did not actually believe in liberty. We were always authoritarian.

 

[Master PO]

Slaves were humans and people knew it.

They did not actually believe in liberty. We were always authoritarian.

of coarse those people knew they were people, however, would america have been created, if slaves would have been given freedom in 1776......no!

the 3 of the southern states would have no gone along with DOI and all were needed, to declare independence.

care to tell me, how those that wanted slaves in the that time, were going to be stopped?

 

[captainawesome]

of coarse those people knew they were people, however, would america have been created, if slaves would have been given freedom in 1776......no!

the 3 of the southern states would have no gone along with DOI and all were needed, to declare independence.

care to tell me, how those that wanted slaves in the that time, were going to be stopped?

Their death perhaps. The point is we are not a nation based on liberty as most people didnt have liberty.

 

[Master PO]

Their death perhaps. The point is we are not a nation based on liberty as most people didnt have liberty.

that is liberty as you look at it today, back then they had thrown off the king, who had all authority or those acting in his name.

you cant compare today with 1776.

 

[captainawesome]

that is liberty as you look at it today, back then they had thrown off the king, who had all authority or those acting in his name.

you cant compare today with 1776.

Exacty so saying the founding fathers would frown on our current freedoms is silly. We are far more free than they ever were.

They were tyrants.

 

[Porchev]

The constitution specifically gives congress the power to provide for armies and a navy, but for obvious reasons, it doesn't mention an air force. If they had instead been a bit more vague and said "provide for a military", it would get around this problem. I'm sure if air fighters were available at the time, the constitution would have addressed it, but they weren't and so it didn't. Considering that a lot of the founding fathers didn't even like the idea of a standing army, do you think they would have wanted us to amend the constitution in order to provided for an air-force or do you think the consensus would have been that the constitutional already allows for an air-force in spirit so amending would be unnecessary?

I think an amendment would not be necessary to include the Air Force, just like a new amendment would not be needed to update the 4th Amendment [The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.] for emails, voice phone calls, texts, and what ever is created in the future. All that should be protected by a common sense interpretation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[Master PO]

Exacty so saying the founding fathers would frown on our current freedoms is silly. We are far more free than they ever were.

They were tyrants.

are you kidding?

we are not free as they were.

 

[Trip]

The founders were only concerned with the liberty of rich white men. All others were second class.

They had no true value of liberty.

You must have missed Frederick Douglass's recognition that the Constitution did not exclude people of color.

"They framed the Constitution plainly with a view to the speedy downfall of slavery. They carefully excluded from the Constitution any and every word which could lead to the belief that they meant it for persons of only one complexion.

"The Constitution, in its language and in its spirit, welcomes the black man to all the rights which it was intended to guarantee to any class of the American people. Its preamble tells us for whom and for what it was made."

Frederick Douglass, Speech delivered to the Church of the Puritans, New York in May 1863
​

The problem is clearly not the Founders, nor the Constitution itself, but rather the corrupt ideology that you embrace.

... or would you allege that a black ex-slave doesn't know what he's talking about?

 

[Trip]

Charity is theft, but slavery ok. Lol Madison was a douche.

"Charity" by the abuse of government power, and directed by government's own prejudice, is no sort of "charity" at all.

Charity is from the choice of those giving the charity, and stolen by abuse of government authority.

No, Madison was not a douche; it is your failed understanding of this country that is at such an abysmal level that is the problem.

 

[Grand Mal]

The constitution specifically gives congress the power to provide for armies and a navy, but for obvious reasons, it doesn't mention an air force. If they had instead been a bit more vague and said "provide for a military", it would get around this problem. I'm sure if air fighters were available at the time, the constitution would have addressed it, but they weren't and so it didn't. Considering that a lot of the founding fathers didn't even like the idea of a standing army, do you think they would have wanted us to amend the constitution in order to provided for an air-force or do you think the consensus would have been that the constitutional already allows for an air-force in spirit so amending would be unnecessary?

Find any lint in that navel?