Full Version: Constitutional Teaser
It has been brought to my attention that the US Air Force is not mentioned in the US Constitution or any of its amendments.
This question is pretty simple, and it goes to strict interpretations of the Constitution:
Is the US Air Force unconstitutional?
This next one might be an interesting exercise in reasoning:
What in the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force?
And of course the begged questions:
What other than the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force, and does this justification extend to other situations?
Please note that I have no particular axe to grind with the USAF. I'm only bringing this up due to the common argument that if such and so isn't in the Constitution, then such and so must be unconstitutional. Let's see how that washes with the USAF.
This question is pretty simple, and it goes to strict interpretations of the Constitution:
Is the US Air Force unconstitutional?
This next one might be an interesting exercise in reasoning:
What in the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force?
And of course the begged questions:
What other than the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force, and does this justification extend to other situations?
Please note that I have no particular axe to grind with the USAF. I'm only bringing this up due to the common argument that if such and so isn't in the Constitution, then such and so must be unconstitutional. Let's see how that washes with the USAF.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 24 2005, 05:07 AM)
It has been brought to my attention that the US Air Force is not mentioned in the US Constitution or any of its amendments.
This question is pretty simple, and it goes to strict interpretations of the Constitution:
Is the US Air Force unconstitutional?
This next one might be an interesting exercise in reasoning:
What in the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force?
And of course the begged questions:
What other than the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force, and does this justification extend to other situations?
Please note that I have no particular axe to grind with the USAF. I'm only bringing this up due to the common argument that if such and so isn't in the Constitution, then such and so must be unconstitutional. Let's see how that washes with the USAF.
This question is pretty simple, and it goes to strict interpretations of the Constitution:
Is the US Air Force unconstitutional?
This next one might be an interesting exercise in reasoning:
What in the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force?
And of course the begged questions:
What other than the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force, and does this justification extend to other situations?
Please note that I have no particular axe to grind with the USAF. I'm only bringing this up due to the common argument that if such and so isn't in the Constitution, then such and so must be unconstitutional. Let's see how that washes with the USAF.
You are misreading the opinion of strict constructionists.
Your premise is that we believe if it's "not in the constitution" then it's "unconstitutional".
Your zero sum game is way off. The constitution itself contains the answer. If the issue is not specifically enumerated in the constitution, it is left up to the people and the states to decide.
In the case of the air force, if the Congress creates one, and the President approves it, then there will be an Air Force. The constitution is silent on the matter as it should be for most of what the busybodies in our court system occupy themselves with on a daily basis.
We need to stop looking to the constitution to instruct us how to tie our shoes.
The enumerated powers (under section Section 8 of the Constitution) permit Congress:
The US Air Force was formerly a part of the U.S. Army. First it was called the US Army Air Service, and later the US Army Air Corps. My take on this is that the above enumerated powers permitted the disestablishment of the Army Air Corps (by act of Congress) to create the Airforce branch.
QUOTE
1) To raise and support Armies
2)To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
3) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
4) 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.
2)To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
3) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
4) 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 US Air Force was formerly a part of the U.S. Army. First it was called the US Army Air Service, and later the US Army Air Corps. My take on this is that the above enumerated powers permitted the disestablishment of the Army Air Corps (by act of Congress) to create the Airforce branch.
What in the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force?
Nothing. The Constitution specifies the powers granted to the federal government, and is quite clear that the federal government has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution. Moreover, it is quite clear that the Constitution does not say anything about air forces; therefore, the federal government is, strictly speaking, enjoined from establishing air forces. If we read the Constitution strictly, then air forces can be established only by the states.
Of course, in practice, there are lots of ways around this. First, as Mrs. Pigpen pointed out, the air forces were originally subsumed to the land and naval forces, so we're really talking about a matter of nomenclature or organizational structure, not substance. Moreover, we can readily use "original intent" arguments to note that the founders couldn't conceive of air forces, so their failure to mention such forces cannot be taken to preclude federal establishment of such forces.
Not even Mr. Justice Scalia relies on strict interpretation of the Constitution, so in practice your observation serves to strike at the heart of strict interpretation, which is clung to by only the more ignorant of citizens. Hayleyanne, can you educate us as to whether there are any reputable scholars who support interpretation this strict?
Nothing. The Constitution specifies the powers granted to the federal government, and is quite clear that the federal government has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution. Moreover, it is quite clear that the Constitution does not say anything about air forces; therefore, the federal government is, strictly speaking, enjoined from establishing air forces. If we read the Constitution strictly, then air forces can be established only by the states.
Of course, in practice, there are lots of ways around this. First, as Mrs. Pigpen pointed out, the air forces were originally subsumed to the land and naval forces, so we're really talking about a matter of nomenclature or organizational structure, not substance. Moreover, we can readily use "original intent" arguments to note that the founders couldn't conceive of air forces, so their failure to mention such forces cannot be taken to preclude federal establishment of such forces.
Not even Mr. Justice Scalia relies on strict interpretation of the Constitution, so in practice your observation serves to strike at the heart of strict interpretation, which is clung to by only the more ignorant of citizens. Hayleyanne, can you educate us as to whether there are any reputable scholars who support interpretation this strict?
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 24 2005, 04:07 AM)
Is the US Air Force unconstitutional?
What in the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force?
What other than the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force, and does this justification extend to other situations?
What in the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force?
What other than the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force, and does this justification extend to other situations?
1. No.
2. Something about protecting citizens, maybe.
3. The fact that governmental obligations need to be fulfilled, and that since the USAF is necessary to fulfill governmental obligations, it is constitutional and necessary. All governmental obligations are prerequisites to all actions of governments. If governmental obligations aren't fulfilled, it means the citizens may revolt, being the antithesis of a government that wants to exist to do whatever it wants.
And the fact that it isn't in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean anything. Plus, that is quite clearly protected in the Constitution. Does it say anything in the Constitution about helping other countries? Must be unconstitutional. US government, stop helping other countries and being unconstitutional!
Is the US Air Force unconstitutional?
Generally, I use the term unconstitutional to refer to powers or actions specifically prohibited by the constitution. To say that the USAF is not authorized by the US Constitution I would phrase as "has no constitutional basis."
What in the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force?
Article I; Section 8:
What other than the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force, and does this justification extend to other situations?
The USAF was reorganized as a separate service branch by the National Security Act of 1947, which also created the Department of Defense, the CIA and the National Security Council (NSC).
A 1948 amendment to the NSA subordinated the Department of the Navy to the Department of Defense.
Many see US Space Com, now a branch of the USAF, becoming its own separate branch-of-service sometime in the not-so-distant future. This could be accomplished by act of congress as well.
Generally, I use the term unconstitutional to refer to powers or actions specifically prohibited by the constitution. To say that the USAF is not authorized by the US Constitution I would phrase as "has no constitutional basis."
What in the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force?
Article I; Section 8:
QUOTE
The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
What other than the Constitution justifies the existence of the US Air Force, and does this justification extend to other situations?
The USAF was reorganized as a separate service branch by the National Security Act of 1947, which also created the Department of Defense, the CIA and the National Security Council (NSC).
A 1948 amendment to the NSA subordinated the Department of the Navy to the Department of Defense.
Many see US Space Com, now a branch of the USAF, becoming its own separate branch-of-service sometime in the not-so-distant future. This could be accomplished by act of congress as well.
Isn't the general welfare clause and such one of those items that really tick conservatives off- you know, when it means helping the poor and such? 
-
Seriously- alot of folks here have a problem with the interpretation of the general welfare question.
- Seriously- alot of folks here have a problem with the interpretation of the general welfare question.
Let me post Federalist Paper 41 in it's entirety [mod]IN PART[/mod]. I will embolden certain key parts.
We don't have to amend the Constitution for every technological change. We didn't have to amend the first amendment, to protect free speech, when the telegraph, the radio, the television, or the internet came into being. The original intent of the 1st Amendment is to protect speech in all it's forms. The intent of granting the federal government military powers was to protect our nation from external aggressors, with the advent of the hot air balloon our forces also utilized airborne transportation. Look at the paragraph I emboldened (2) ask yourself if in today's world an airforce is needed for national defense.
As you seen in the paragraph I emboldened (3) the general welfare clause does not give government unlimited power to whatever it wants. Study the history and look for the intent of the founders, folks.
Everyone, please read this in it's entirety. It pretty much lays out the role of the federal government. Which does not include corporate, or individual, welfare.
[mod]Edited to conform cited section with forum
QUOTE
To the People of the State of New York:
THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.
Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?
<snip>
It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.
That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger(1); 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.
<snip>
Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils(2).
Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing Confederation establishes this power in the most ample form.
<snip>
THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.
Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?
<snip>
It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.
That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger(1); 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.
<snip>
Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils(2).
Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing Confederation establishes this power in the most ample form.
<snip>
We don't have to amend the Constitution for every technological change. We didn't have to amend the first amendment, to protect free speech, when the telegraph, the radio, the television, or the internet came into being. The original intent of the 1st Amendment is to protect speech in all it's forms. The intent of granting the federal government military powers was to protect our nation from external aggressors, with the advent of the hot air balloon our forces also utilized airborne transportation. Look at the paragraph I emboldened (2) ask yourself if in today's world an airforce is needed for national defense.
As you seen in the paragraph I emboldened (3) the general welfare clause does not give government unlimited power to whatever it wants. Study the history and look for the intent of the founders, folks.
Everyone, please read this in it's entirety. It pretty much lays out the role of the federal government. Which does not include corporate, or individual, welfare.
[mod]Edited to conform cited section with forum
QUOTE
Everyone, please read this in it's entirety. It pretty much lays out the role of the federal government. Which does not include corporate, or individual, welfare.
I think the earlier posters have pointed out why the existence of the Air Force isn't unconstitutional.
Relative to the argument that we should always look to the framers' arguments and motivations - yes, I agree. We should know what was on their minds when they wrote the words.
But just as the Constitution isn't, as one SC Justice famously said, a suicide pact, it also isn't a perpetual trust. The exigencies of life from time to time will require that we revisit the charter and re-interpret or change it in light of modern realities.
To deny the government the right to provide corporate or individual welfare, for instance, must have made plenty of sense in the 1780's, when a wide-open frontier and thousands of square miles of wilderness made it easy for people to opt out of the organized economy and make do on their own.
It's nearly impossible, in 2005, to take that approach. Our nation's level of sophistication and complexity pretty much mandates that everyone living here participate to some degree in the economy. I'm no fan of welfare, and I think that as we knew it, it was very vulnerable to abuse. But I do think it's not only reasonable for government to provide some sort of safety net, I think it's irresponsible (and unChristian) for government not to do so.
The same, unfortunately, applies to corporate welfare. When the US provided loan guarantees to Chrysler a few years back, that was a pragmatic move designed to help this major employer stay afloat - had Chrysler gone bankrupt, the impact on the economy would have been unimaginable. (Don't misunderstand - most forms of corporate welfare I vehemently oppose.)
I don't want to open a debate on welfare - I'm just pointing out that IMO, there will be occasions - hopefully rare - when we'll decide it's in our nation's best interests to take action not intended by the framers. When necessary, we'll need to amend the Constitution to do so, but (again, IMO) there will be times when that won't be necessary.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.