The Administration's Budget, the Two Year Limitation, and the Second Amendment

[struggle4progress]

I.

The Administration's budget ought to lead to national self-reflection, unless somehow we Americans have, at long last, no decency.

The proposed half-trillion in military spending approximately equals the combined military budgets of all other countries in the world. Those inclined to reflect on world affairs could profitably recall what Madison wrote in the 41st Federalist Paper:

If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions.

In combination with the Administration's now well-established and ever-longer history of contempt for diplomatic niceties, our increased military spending can only presage increased conflict. But any American, who does not care for international issues, might also profitably contemplate this "defense" budget, remembering the Constitutional Convention's debate concerning standing armies and the liberty of the people.

Many eighteenth-century Americans believed that an uncontrolled Executive, commanding a large military, was a real threat. Recent history shows that this issue is still with us, though it takes forms the Founders could not have imagined. The Administration claims power to engage in warrantless spying, refuses to inform Congress about spying on Americans (despite being advised that such acts are illegal), claims that the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus, and argues that war confers such powers. The military runs credit checks, spies on protesters, and apparently lies to Congress. That list, of course, is very incomplete.

Conscientious Americans should take the opportunity, presented by the Administration's budget, to reflect very carefully on the real significance of our current military expenditures and the threats posed by an Executive with a large army and a large military budget -- billions of dollars are slated for mercenaries

II.

Here is a small bit of post-colonial history.

As explained by http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed24.htm">Hamilton, discussions at the Constitutional Convention left a trace in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

A stranger to our politics .. would be surprised to discover, ... that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE .... and that .. there was .. an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which .. will appear to be a .. security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity ....

This did not persuade all doubters and in a subsequent paper Hamilton returned to the same issue:

It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to .. two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough .., would find resources .. to enable him to dispense with supplies from .. the legislature. But .... <it> is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy, especially if we take into our view .. the militia, which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary ...

Several papers later, Hamilton was pleading inconsistently that the Federal government should control the militias:

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation .. of .. the guardian of the national security.

The debate persisted. Although militias were not mentioned in the original Constitution, the First Congress immediately reintroduced them with a (now nearly-opaque) clause in the Bill of Rights:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State .... .

Almost everyone has forgotten the relationship of that amendment to early concerns about a standing army.

[papau]

1. Excellent post - I wish it could be the editorial in -say - the Washington Post - but

support for war corporations comes from the corporations that own the main stream meadia - so I do not expect your article as an editorial or an op-ed in any MSM.

But it is a great reminder of what we should be thinking about.

[JDPriestly]

2. We've lost our way.

Thanks for reminding us of the dream of the Founding Fathers. Why are we betraying their dream?

[JDPriestly]

3. Please recommend. All DUers need to read this. It's important.

[scarletwoman]

4. Wonderful post! k & r (nt)

[ktlyon]

5. Good post

The Constitutional amendment is not about gun owners right to carry hand guns, it is about having a militia where in times of invasion the standing army would be all the people of our country stepping out of there homes and defending there homes, cities and country. No standing armies where needed for defense. It goes with out saying that the only way to engage in an offensive war was with Congressional approval and consent to raise an army.

[maine_raptor]

6. Great Post, and I would add this..............

in answer to an up poster who asked how we lost our way:

"Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time."


Hamilton, Federalist #26.

[formercia]

7. Blackwater is not a "well regulated Militia."

IMHO.

[struggle4progress]

8. No shit: it's a little private standing army, composed of mercenaries

[formercia]

9. That's why Junior wants them made 'official'

To get around those pesky laws that the police and military have to abide by.