for the love of power ... and money

In my last piece, I postulated the Air and Space Forces were unconstitutional. But how on earth did I come to that conclusion. And having grown up in a military family, Air Force BTW, I stepped off into the Navy after high school. So, by default my blood carries the formative years of youth and early adulthood a military bearing unshakeable. To the point, if I wear a printed T-shirt, I also wear an undershirt underneath.

Yet, where the duncity of my inability to recognize mistakes in youth and adulthood, my brain not finally matured until a senior citizen, I now see what was meant to be, highjacked by those who were supposed to protect: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; (Constitution/Article I/Section 8/11^th, 12^th and 13^th Clauses).

Understand, before the Constitution became the law of the land, it was hotly contested by those against it, desiring the Articles of Confederation be corrected. Why: Too much power relegated to one source. The State’s being independent and autonomous (untenable as United States), but through the Constitution’s structure, no more. Think Anti-Federalist. Although in the understanding thereof, they were no better than a Federalist. Both sides desired power on the precept of wording otherwise that was more prevarication than truth, with the gist of everything being: Which side was more right? Anyway, two sides: Anti and Fed, neither of which wanted a repeat of the past they’d forcefully rejected, knowing the only true way of keeping the same from happening again would be to keep an Army from having the ability to again control the masses. And the Anti-Federalists did not trust an overarching government. They preferred the independence of State over the control of an overall. Their history not that distant:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions (Declaration of Independence).

So, in their fight for government into perpetuity, both the Framers (Federalists) and Anti-Federalists were adamant about an Army large enough to subdue the people never be fielded, hence “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” in relation to the Army. Hell, some Anti-Federalists did not want an Army unless needed period. Thus, in the Constitution (Article I/Section 8/14^th and 15^th Clauses), States would maintain militia’s (today’s National Guard) with Congress (House of Representatives/Senate), in part to protect against the tyranny of an aggressive or repressive government, they believing: It is a known fact in human nature, that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object. Upon the same principle that a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large, the people of each State would be apt to feel a stronger bias towards their local governments than towards the government of the Union; … (Federalist 17). Remember, where the people today vote for representatives, before the 17^th amendment, State legislatures appointed senators. Yet, not so today, even more power centralized:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Except: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, (Constitution: Article III/Section 2/1^st Clause).

Which brings me to Federalist 74: The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.

"The President may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective officers." This I consider as a mere redundancy in the plan, as the right for which it provides would result of itself from the office.

Which all of this is to say that through law, the various branches of the DoD (Department of Defense), after WW II were created through: Public Law 253, 80th Congress; Chapter 343, 1st Session; S. 758 and read: To promote the national security by providing for a Secretary of Defense; for a National Military Establishment; for a Department of the Army, a Department of the Navy, and a Department of the Air Force. But was that law constitutional? The Constitution itself a fundamental law (Federalist 78), meaning any law written must find its basis in the Constitution. As such, there is no power defined in the Constitution that I can find for Congress to abdicate its role maintaining an Army and Navy. Nor, unless by amendment the formation of other military branches. Which, by design are for defensive purposes only: WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America (Constitution’s preamble).

So, when it comes to the Constitution, three words: WE THE PEOPLE. As such, or the need to thereof, apply the current political atmosphere, including USAID (United States Agency for International Development). An Executive Branch Department involved in activities deliberately destructive, and every stance the department has taken has one standing on Party affiliation alone for the right or wrong of money spent, not the Constitution. A department exposed using taxpayer money to divide nations, begging: Does the military industrial complex have tentacles in this? The same one that gave us Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others.

And in the scheme of the vicious cycle regarding money, power, and politics, everything boils down to those three most important words ever structured together: IT MAY be contended, perhaps, that instead of OCCASIONAL appeals to the people, which are liable to the objections urged against them, PERIODICAL appeals are the proper and adequate means of PREVENTING AND CORRECTING INFRACTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. It will be attended to, that in the examination of these expedients, I confine myself to their aptitude for ENFORCING the Constitution, by keeping the several departments of power within their due bounds, without particularly considering them as provisions for ALTERING the Constitution itself (Federalist 50). So, in everything taking place today, the truly sad part: As much as I struggle with the juxtapositions of Federalist and Anti-Federalist, at times, I do believe the anti’s were more right. Especially where today Democrat and Republican platforms are flat wrong. Either Party desire for absolute control, antithetical to either Federalist or Anti-Federalist. And by departmentalizing the military forces, the two-year funding for the Army no longer applies. The desire to prevent an overly large force mustered against the people enshrined in the Constitution itself erased without amending it. And I know in reference to my postulations: opinions stink. But I contend: THINK Damnit!