OT: Question for USA Folks.

[Laughing Cow]

Hi All.

Got a question for the folks that are in the know about the US constitution.

I read recently an article that the USA has been in violation of the US constitution bassically since WW II by maintaining a standing army.

Right or wrong?

[Kristoffer]

seems like a main board question

[Starchaser107]

beware the wrath of kung lek

[Kristoffer]

..but if he post it when there's lotta ppl there, they will catch on to the thread and then stick around when it gets moved. maybe

[bodhitree]

Our constitution is only suggestions, not rules or anything like that

[chen zhen]

*coughbadexcusecough*

[Kristoffer]

yaa

[yenhoi]

No. The constitution authorizes the federal government to pay and maintain a standing army.

Since the Supreme Court is a part of the federal government, and it decides what is in violation of the constitution, then technically 'the USA' cannot be in violation.

...and why would WWII be any different then WWI, the spanish american war, the civil war, or the mexican american war?

[Merryprankster]

Yenhoi,

True. The author of that sentiment misinterpreted Art 1, Sec 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution.

Article 1, Section. 8.

Clause 1: 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;
Congress can levy taxes and Duties to pay for the common defense.

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Congress can raise Armies, with the caveat that the APPROPRIATION shall expire after two years. I'm sure this is where the person talking about this screwed up. The money appropriated can't just sit around. It has to be spent or it goes back in the pot. We have two seperate processes whereby money is allocated to the Executive Branch in the U.S. The first is Authorization--the various agencies submit their requests to the House of Representatives and the Authorization committee submits a bill to authorize the expenditure of whatever they think is appropriate. However, this does not guarentee that agency will receive that much money. The Appropriations bill, which comes next, actually allocates the funds. The appropriation can be LESS than the authorization, but the agency cannot spend (or receive) more than it is authorized. Those funds must be spent within 'x' amount of time or it goes back in the pot. The budget process is yearly anyway and with the exception of certain funds for acquisition is either one-year or two-year money, IME.

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
No problem here. Note that this includes the Marines.

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The famous (or infamous) elastic clause. Congress is empowered to make any law it sees fit in order to carry out its enumerated powers and responsibilities, provided that said laws do not violate the Constitution itself.

So, there you have it. Congress is empowered and responsible to provide for the common defense. It is empowered raise and MAINTAIN an army, but can't fund it out longer than two years before they have to appropriate money again. It can provide for and maintain a Navy without restrictions. Finally, it can make a law to create a standing army - provided that doesn't violate the Constitution (it doesn't).
The only way that Congress could be in violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 is if it were to appropriate more than two years of money at a time.