Are we going to get rid of the USAF now?

Question

The Republicans have read the Constitution on the floor, and to appease their tea party backers, they are going to now require that EVERY bill put before the Congress has to be proven to be legal by showing what the Constitution allows.  

The Constitution gives power to "Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that use for more than 2 years."  It also states that the government can "Build and Maintain a Navy."  and also to make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and Naval Forces."

Under the strictest interpretation of the Constitution the Air Force would be Un-Constitutional.  Because there is no mention of it in the Constitution.


  The Army and Navy could stay, but using the same strict guidelines that they want to apply to the Health Care Bill, we would need to get rid of the US Air Force.  Because there is NO provision for maintaining an Air Force in the Constitution.

Progressive Constitutionalists argue that the Constitution is a living document and changes and evolves with the country.  They say that if there were aircraft that could be used for defense when the framers wrote the constitution that they would have included an Air Force.So the constitution has evolved with the country.  Just like we were able to make armed car-jacking a federal offense by using the power of the interstate commerce laws since cars are made up of parts from many states.  So a car is really a product of interstate commerce.  

Of course using this logic you could argue that the government has the right to enact the health care bill.  Since that cannot be allowed, they decry the arguments that it is a living document.  No, it must be specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  

According to the new rules put on by the GOP, is the Air Force going to be gone?? Remember, the USAF is NOT part of the Department of the Army anymore, they are a seperate branch, with their own chain of command, rank structure and regulations.  So you can't wuss out and say that they are a part of the Army.  

And if they make an exception for that, then what is the next one they will make??

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Good catch.  The fundamentalist Constitutionalists will get their panties in bunch over that issue.

Anonymous · Answer

What is a "Progressive Constitutionalist"?  That is like being a Catholic Muslim.  The two are total polar opposites.

There is no authority yo make car jacking a federal crime based solely on the interstate commerce clause or all burglaries, robberies and other crimes would be federal crimes as it would be near impossible to prove every element of a crime originated in the state where the crime was committed.

The Air Force, under you twisted reasoning, could just be put back under the Department of the Army, where it originated.  "Problem" solved.  Now all we need to do is eliminate the Departments of Education (Socialist Indoctrination and Liberal Brainwashing), Housing and Urban Destruction, Welfare, and all of the alphabet agencies and "czar" positions.

How does shoving 100% of the population a doomed-to-failure, government run program to benefit 10% provide for the "GENERAL WELFARE", especially when the majority DOESN'T WANT IT?  Also, that phrase appears in the PREAMBLE to the amendment, NOT in the body so it is not an enforceable part of the amendment.  Besides, what could the government NOT do in its misguided effort to "provide for the general welfare"?  Do you really want the government to have that kind of unlimited authority?  I DON'T!!

Socrates · Answer

Yeah, you have a point. However, the 18th century definition of Army includes definitions as a general military force. Considering airplanes didn't exist back then, there is sufficient "wiggle room" to look at it with Originalism and say that supporting an Air Force would be an intent of the Founders. It wouldn't hurt though to include a section in any new amendment adding support for the Air Force or properly making a generalized clause for support of military forces. 

The commerce clause would not pass the scrutiny of Originalism however.

Philip McCrevice · Answer

Section 8. 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; 

The Department of Defense is authorized by the Constitution, and that includes anything used for the common defense.

it also covers space based weapons.

? · Answer

Air rigidity grow to hitch the the army at one factor until 1949. It grow to be regular as a results of fact the army air corps. It woild be pointless to merge usaf into the army back. you're able to desire to comprehend that the air rigidity is likewise our on line worldwide, meaning it deals with satellite tv for pc intelligence and not in basic terms helicopters. do no longer you think of that the if usaf grow to be seperated from the army and made into an self sustaining branch, then there could desire to be a robust clarification for doing so?

? · Answer

Since the Air Force football team is even worse than the one at West Point, I would be OK with folding the air force into the army or navy, if it makes you happy.

Wounded Duck · Answer

GOP heads will explode if this continues. THX!

Trending News

Are we going to get rid of the USAF now?

7 Answers