Constitutional Answer to Missile Defense?

[Knightskye]

Say a neocon starts talking about this:
http://www.heritage.org/33-minutes/

What's a good answer, from a Constitutional perspective?

[socialize_me]

I know this isn't what you're looking for, but you could start by fixing Bush sitting on his ass for 7 minutes before doing anything when he heard "The country is under attack"

[free.alive]

You would have to ask the same about the air force, really.

It seems to me that the Founders eschewed standing armies (what year did we finally get one?) and preferred militias and an army that could be raised by Congress in times of war and disbanded afterward.

However, the Navy is Constitutional, and the Marines as a subset of the Navy. Must be because it is specialized and ships can't just sit and rot between conflicts. Someone must maintain them, and I'm sure the Founders understood that technology would improve these things, so they wouldn't want the enemy having brand new ships 50 years later while we had a bunch of sailboats.

So I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the Air Force could be considered Constitutional. And by extension, since Missiles are the only thing that can defend against Missiles, I would argue that Missile Defense could be Constitutional as well.

Obviously, nowhere in the Constitution could these things be specifically mentioned. While we all should hate war, the Founders obviously saw its occasional necessity - for we had the Revolution!

Some of us speak of the Founders as though they were Gods. Granted they were probablty far greater men and statesman than most today. But let's not forget that they were... politicians. And masterful ones at that.

[jbuttell]

You would have to ask the same about the air force, really.

It seems to me that the Founders eschewed standing armies (what year did we finally get one?) and preferred militias and an army that could be raised by Congress in times of war and disbanded afterward.

However, the Navy is Constitutional, and the Marines as a subset of the Navy. Must be because it is specialized and ships can't just sit and rot between conflicts. Someone must maintain them, and I'm sure the Founders understood that technology would improve these things, so they wouldn't want the enemy having brand new ships 50 years later while we had a bunch of sailboats.

So I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the Air Force could be considered Constitutional. And by extension, since Missiles are the only thing that can defend against Missiles, I would argue that Missile Defense could be Constitutional as well.

Obviously, nowhere in the Constitution could these things be specifically mentioned. While we all should hate war, the Founders obviously saw its occasional necessity - for we had the Revolution!

Some of us speak of the Founders as though they were Gods. Granted they were probablty far greater men and statesman than most today. But let's not forget that they were... politicians. And masterful ones at that.


Very interesting points, thanks for the post!

[Knightskye]

You would have to ask the same about the air force, really.

It seems to me that the Founders eschewed standing armies (what year did we finally get one?) and preferred militias and an army that could be raised by Congress in times of war and disbanded afterward.

However, the Navy is Constitutional, and the Marines as a subset of the Navy. Must be because it is specialized and ships can't just sit and rot between conflicts. Someone must maintain them, and I'm sure the Founders understood that technology would improve these things, so they wouldn't want the enemy having brand new ships 50 years later while we had a bunch of sailboats.

So I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that the Air Force could be considered Constitutional. And by extension, since Missiles are the only thing that can defend against Missiles, I would argue that Missile Defense could be Constitutional as well.

Obviously, nowhere in the Constitution could these things be specifically mentioned. While we all should hate war, the Founders obviously saw its occasional necessity - for we had the Revolution!

Some of us speak of the Founders as though they were Gods. Granted they were probablty far greater men and statesman than most today. But let's not forget that they were... politicians. And masterful ones at that.

Very interesting points, thanks for the post!

Yeah, thanks.

[lodge939]

Let's have missile defense in Alaska and Hawaii but I don't see why we need to be in Europe. Europe is quite capable of beating back Russia if they do something crazy like invade Poland.

[lynnf]

the French were using rockets in war in the 1700's - not extensively because artillery was effective. remember the part from the national anthem about the "rocket's red glare"(war of 1812)? they could have prohibited rockets in the Constitution if they had desired to, but it seems that they didn't prohibit any particular technology.

so, where's any argument for prohibition of any technology on a Constitutional basis? - no basis.


lynn