Is the air-force unconstitutional?

[captainawesome]

are you kidding?

we are not free as they were.

We are far me free. Women can vote and no one is a slave.

Non white males cound as people.

 

[captainawesome]

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?

Eff fredrick Douglas. He is an uncle Tom. If being a slave is so cool you do it.

He simply told his white masters what they wanted to hear like a good slave would.

 

[captainawesome]

"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.

I understand you think slavery was not so bad and they were free enough.

 

[Trip]

Eff fredrick Douglas. He is an uncle Tom. If being a slave is so cool you do it.

He simply told his white masters what they wanted to hear like a good slave would.

I'm doing slavery right now, living under a government that believes it can legitimately claim ownership of my body, and the body of every American citizen, and dictate our relative worth, and what health care we might receive. It does not need chains when it is so thoroughly institutionalized.

I truly pity you calling Douglass an Uncle Tom; that really speaks for the level of depravity that the Progressive ideology has sunk to. Give only lip-service to despising slavery, while you promote a new enslavement and the institution of neo-feudalistic dictate of people's lives by government, and then call Douglass an Uncle Tom, because he rejects your false disparagement of this country so as to promote that new Marxist totalitarian dictate. Pathetic.

 

[Trip]

I understand you think slavery was not so bad and they were free enough.

You don't seem to understand all that much. You should refrain from misrepresenting my own position, while you work on your own failed understanding.

 

[Master PO]

We are far me free. Women can vote and no one is a slave.

Non white males cound as people.

since the constitution was ratified, millions of laws have been passed, laws restrict actions.

 

[StillBallin75]

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?

Provides for the common defense.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution set up a system of privilege for some servitude for others.

Please do direct us to the specific passages of the U.S. Constitution that sets up any sort of system of privilege, and any sort of system of servitude?


Perhaps you feel that constraining the government in what it might legitimately do, while protecting individual rights and property, thereby preventing government from using its force and authority to equalize persons and redistribute property, as being promotional of a system of privilege?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

The Marine Corps is part of the Navy. It's a concept that was well-understood and established at the time. It takes two categories of people to fully man a military ship. There are the people who operate the ship itself, along with any related equipment; and then, when the ship gets where it is going, there are soldiers who leave the ship to fight on the ground. The latter are Marines. They are part of the same navy that operates the ship on which they ride, but their function is different from that of the personnel who operate the ship. Even if the authors of the Constitution had intended to strictly only authorize a ground-based Army, and a Navy, the Marines would have been clearly understood to be a part of the Navy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

One can only genuinely practice charity using one's own money and resources. “Charity” using money and resources taken from others against their will is, indeed, not charity at all, but merely theft.

 

[Wiggen]

The Marine Corps is part of the Navy. It's a concept that was well-understood and established at the time. It takes two categories of people to fully man a military ship. There are the people who operate the ship itself, along with any related equipment; and then, when the ship gets where it is going, there are soldiers who leave the ship to fight on the ground. The latter are Marines. They are part of the same navy that operates the ship on which they ride, but their function is different from that of the personnel who operate the ship. Even if the authors of the Constitution had intended to strictly only authorize a ground-based Army, and a Navy, the Marines would have been clearly understood to be a part of the Navy.

Thanks for explaining that. As somebody who spent 3 years in the Gator Navy, sailing around with a Marine Battalion Landing Team, I wouldn't ever have known this without your brilliant explanation of it. Next time you see a marine, tell him he's just another sailor.

Dumb thread, but amusing.

 

[phishfi]

Thanks for explaining that. As somebody who spent 3 years in the Gator Navy, sailing around with a Marine Battalion Landing Team, I wouldn't ever have known this without your brilliant explanation of it. Next time you see a marine, tell him he's just another sailor.

Dumb thread, but amusing.

Well, all belittling aside, the Marines do fall under the Navy. The top Marine is the commandant of the MC, while every other branch has a secretary. The commandant reports the the secretary of the Navy.

On the overall topic, the Air Force definitely has a legitimate purpose to exist, although the constitution didn't give that authority to the federal government. The proper way of doing it (on our legislators parts) would have been to amend the constitution to authorize the addition of a new branch of service. Alternatively, the Air Force could have been maintained as the Army Air Corps. Either one of those would have been a completely constitutional solution.

Side note: stop calling us the Chair Force, we are only sitting about 80% of the time these days

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Yes because the Constitution did not specify what type of military equipment could or could not be used.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

On the overall topic, the Air Force definitely has a legitimate purpose to exist, although the constitution didn't give that authority to the federal government. The proper way of doing it (on our legislators parts) would have been to amend the constitution to authorize the addition of a new branch of service. Alternatively, the Air Force could have been maintained as the Army Air Corps. Either one of those would have been a completely constitutional solution.

I'm not sure that either is necessary.

Clearly, the Air Corp was Constitutional, as part of the Army. As part of the Army, it fulfilled what had come to become a vital part of modern military operation, falling solidly under the federal duty of national defense.

As it grew more important, logistical considerations made it sensible to break it out into a branch of its own. As such, it still fulfills exactly the same function and before. It seems rather ridiculous to hold that whether it is constitutional or not depends on a technical matter of organization that has no bearing on it's actual function.

 

[phishfi]

I'm not sure that either is necessary.

Clearly, the Air Corp was Constitutional, as part of the Army. As part of the Army, it fulfilled what had come to become a vital part of modern military operation, falling solidly under the federal duty of national defense.

As it grew more important, logistical considerations made it sensible to break it out into a branch of its own. As such, it still fulfills exactly the same function and before. It seems rather ridiculous to hold that whether it is constitutional or not depends on a technical matter of organization that has no bearing on it's actual function.

Fair enough, but better safe than sorry considering the people who love to use this as a case to call Constitutionalists hypocrites...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Fair enough, but better safe than sorry considering the people who love to use this as a case to call Constitutionalists hypocrites...

Such are usually trying to use such technicalities as this over the Air Force to condemn those of us who defend clear Constitutional principles, such as the right to keep and bear arms. As such, they have no credibility whatsoever, and I see no reason to do anything to cater to them.

 

[American]

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.

Article II, Section 2 allows the President to appoint officers of the United States and executive departments with the advice and consent of the Senate. I see your argument that an amendment would be necessary to establish a military present for air. So generically you're saying the Constitution establishes the power of Congress to raise armies (land) and a navy (sea), so an amendment is required to establish an air force (air) and maybe a space force (space). I'm not sure if adding an executive department counts as raising a separate military entity such as you imply.

 

[Master PO]

Article II, Section 2 allows the President to appoint officers of the United States and executive departments with the advice and consent of the Senate. I see your argument that an amendment would be necessary to establish a military present for air. So generically you're saying the Constitution establishes the power of Congress to raise armies (land) and a navy (sea), so an amendment is required to establish an air force (air) and maybe a space force (space). I'm not sure if adding an executive department counts as raising a separate military entity such as you imply.

well i said it gives the congress no power to create a department and it does not.

article 2 is not congressional power... its presidential power

article 2 says the president can appoint officers of the u.s. and u.s. executive departments (commerce, HUD, justice , state) ...saying he can appoint officers, and officers of the departments which exist.

if congress have the ability to create departments at will, ..that would not keep the government limited, that is why an amendment is needed, to get approval from the states to expand government.

 

[YoungConserv]

The Air Force started through the army and as time went by it was thought to be better if it was independent so if you really want to get nit picky you could say its a independent special forces branch of the army.

 

[Master PO]

The Air Force started through the army and as time went by it was thought to be better if it was independent so if you really want to get nit picky you could say its a independent special forces branch of the army.

ask yourself this, after WWII, would have it been easy to pass a constitutional amendment and create the USAF......of coarse it would, but goverment does not want to follow constitutional law, they wish to create laws ,which are outside the constitution, and increase their power.

if they could seek amendment each time to increase power, they would not get that power because the states would not approve of the government overreach in the last 80 years.

 

[AllanHampton]

Air Force is constitutional. The purpose of the federal government is to protect the physical USA and the purpose of an Amendment is to delegate the federal government a necessary "power" (to protect the USA) that was unforeseen in 1787.