How can we trust the military to protect our freedom when they do not even practice it?

[dude58677]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOCxxHQJYY&feature=related

[Monarchist]

Those are recruits at boot camp. Their purpose there is to become disciplined and to learn the basics of combat. The total control the DIs have over them is part of the learning process. Once they leave basic training it won't be anything like this.

[dude58677]

Those are recruits at boot camp. Their purpose there is to become disciplined and to learn the basics of combat. The total control the DIs have over them is part of the learning process. Once they leave basic training it won't be anything like this.

No, here is the Uniform Military Code of Justice:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#SUBCHAPTER X. PUNITIVE ARTICLES

You call this freedom?

[KingRobbStark]

In the military, police academies, and boot camps you are taught to obey your superiors, but NEVER the constitution.

[Monarchist]

No, here is the Uniform Military Code of Justice:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#SUBCHAPTER X. PUNITIVE ARTICLES

You call this freedom?

I'm well aware of what the UCMJ is. Its purpose is to ensure a disciplined and orderly fighting force. Members of the military volunteered to become subjects of its jurisdiction and are made aware of what it entails before they sign their contract.

[JohnGalt1225]

I'm well aware of what the UCMJ is. Its purpose is to ensure a disciplined and orderly fighting force. Members of the military volunteered to become subjects of its jurisdiction and are made aware of what it entails before they sign their contract.
Exactly, it's not like you're forced to join the military. I knew full well before I enlisted that I would be voluntarily following all local, state, and federal laws as well as the UCMJ.

[mport1]

The purpose of the military is not to protect our freedom, it is to protect the state.

[Philhelm]

Wasn't it something like 50% of all 2008 presidential campaign donations from military personnel went to Ron Paul?

[dude58677]

I'm well aware of what the UCMJ is. Its purpose is to ensure a disciplined and orderly fighting force. Members of the military volunteered to become subjects of its jurisdiction and are made aware of what it entails before they sign their contract.

Why have it as a contract? Why not regular employment where you are not obligated to stay? Also you think that the military is the only way to defend oneself?Let me get this straight, it is more noble to be sent overseas and kill a person you never met and was also ordered to be there by their superiors but it isn't noble to defend one's home and family with guns?

[Philhelm]

The purpose of the military is not to protect our freedom, it is to protect the state.

Sadly, that is true.

[dude58677]

The purpose of the military is not to protect our freedom, it is to protect the state.



Bingo!

[Monarchist]

Why have it as a contract? Why not regular employment where you are not obligated to stay?

I don't know, but that's a good question.


Also you think that the military is the only way to defend oneself?Let me get this straight, it is more noble to be sent overseas and kill a person you never met and was also ordered to be there by their superiors but it isn't noble to defend one's home and family with guns?

None of this has anything to do with this conversation at all.

[mport1]

Sadly, that is true.

Yep, and the purpose of the military has always been to protect the state. If the country was ever attacked, citizens would be left out to dry and government officials, military bases, DC, etc. would be protected. This is why we must abolish the military and have competing private defense agencies if we actually want to be protected.

[xGREGx]

as a 7 year veteran of the army who has served 2 deployments to iraq i can say that there are plenty of soldiers out there who love our country and are fed up with the government. i encourage everyone to check out the following. these are soldiers you can count on to defend freedom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUQ_N_vHc0&feature=player_embedded

www.ivaw.org
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

[dude58677]

[QUOTE=Monarchist;3287155]I don't know, but that's a good question.
A soldier is really an employee being misclassified as an indepent contractor. An independent contractor brings their expertise to the table and it doesn't matter how the job is done as long as it is done. So when the employee such as the soldier complains that they do not like their job, their employer tells them they can't quit because they are independent contractors which they are not.

If they truly were indepent contractors then they would be mercenaries unlike militiamen who defend themselves personally which is a much greater cause.

[AFPVet]

I wondered why we were never taught about the Constitution which we swore an oath to support and defend.... The Constitution should have been the first thing taught in basic.

[Pericles]

The purpose of the military is not to protect our freedom, it is to protect the state.

I'm not drinking your Kool-Aid. This was my job in the Army:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Any order that I would follow, or give must meet the test of Constitutional validity. My job is to protect the Constitution, even if it has to be protected from the government or the anarchist of the day.

[dude58677]

This does not mean that soldiers toughness, bravery, and love of country shouldn't be commended. They should. My issue is the system doesn't practice what it preaches.

[Pericles]

I wondered why we were never taught about the Constitution which we swore an oath to support and defend.... The Constitution should have been the first thing taught in basic.
You will notice it is the first thing on our training plan:

http://www.dallascitytroop.org/plan1.html

[heavenlyboy34]

The purpose of the military is not to protect our freedom, it is to protect the state.
qft. +rep

[mport1]

I'm not drinking your Kool-Aid. This was my job in the Army:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Any order that I would follow, or give must meet the test of Constitutional validity. My job is to protect the Constitution, even if it has to be protected from the government or the anarchist of the day.

That is what soldiers swear to, but that is not what their job is in practice.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not drinking your Kool-Aid. This was my job in the Army:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Any order that I would follow, or give must meet the test of Constitutional validity. My job is to protect the Constitution, even if it has to be protected from the government or the anarchist of the day.
So, soldiers who go into the (undeclared, illegal) mideast wars are violating their oaths? Did you help with these wars? If so, why did you violate your oath to uphold the Constitution?

[Pericles]

So, soldiers who go into the (undeclared, illegal) mideast wars are violating their oaths? Did you help with these wars? If so, why did you violate your oath to uphold the Constitution?
Didn't go, so you are addressing the wrong audience.

[AuH20]

Despite the drone mentality of the military, these men are still individuals and certainly all won't blindly follow orders. If I had to guess, it's probably a 60-40 split in favor of the conscientious objectors.

[nate895]

To say the military shouldn't have UCMJ and tough discipline is like saying teachers shouldn't be able to hand out grades.

[qh4dotcom]

The purpose of the military is not to protect our freedom, it is to protect the state.

Well said

[Aldanga]

To say the military shouldn't have UCMJ and tough discipline is like saying teachers shouldn't be able to hand out grades.
I don't think teachers should give out grades. :D

[nate895]

I don't think teachers should give out grades. :D

Sadly, too many people would agree with that. No order. Chaos should reign instead.

[qh4dotcom]

I'm not drinking your Kool-Aid. This was my job in the Army:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Any order that I would follow, or give must meet the test of Constitutional validity. My job is to protect the Constitution, even if it has to be protected from the government or the anarchist of the day.

B.S
Would you have protected Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution (the natural born citizen requirements)?
Of course not, only Terry Lakin and a few others would have the guts to do that. Also see below


So, soldiers who go into the (undeclared, illegal) mideast wars are violating their oaths? Did you help with these wars? If so, why did you violate your oath to uphold the Constitution?

[AuH20]

Remember this Kurt Russell movie?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGuwzYN4qAc

Great scene........"Soldiers deserve soldiers, sir":


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJfEQQ_Tl_o&feature=related

[Pericles]

B.S
Would you have protected Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution (the natural born citizen requirements)?
Of course not, only Terry Lakin and a few others would have the guts to do that. Also see below

Yes - and the preponderance of evidence is that the guy was born in Hawaii. You will note that the requirement to be a natural born citizen just assumes citizenship at birth - no imperative to maintain it uninterrupted - even giving the most favorable assumptions to the "birthers". As long as the states put the guy on the ballot (you know that part of the Constitution where states are the sole judge of elections). And the electors chosen by the states determine who shall become President.

The ultimate arbiter is the people as expressed by the states in all cases of dispute arising under the Constitution. Yes, the SCOTUS has usurped that power, but it is up to the states to take corrective action.

The role of the active military in all cases of dispute is to allow the Constitional process to work - the states call forth the militia to "execute the Laws of the Union" to include the Constitution. That is not a power of the Army and Navy of the United States.

[dude58677]

Sadly, too many people would agree with that. No order. Chaos should reign instead.

I didn't say get rid of the Uniform of Military Justice. I said reform it. I just think that the military should stop treating employees(soldiers) as independent contractors.

[nate895]

I didn't say get rid of the Uniform of Military Justice. I said reform it. I just think that the military should stop treating employees(soldiers) as independent contractors.

Military personnel cannot be treated as regular employees because a higher code of discipline is needed than if you're an employee of a corporation. For instance, it would be foolhardy not to provide for the death penalty for those who desert their post under fire or in a war-zone. Accountants aren't subject to that kind of discipline.

[dude58677]

Military personnel cannot be treated as regular employees because a higher code of discipline is needed than if you're an employee of a corporation. For instance, it would be foolhardy not to provide for the death penalty for those who desert their post under fire or in a war-zone. Accountants aren't subject to that kind of discipline.


Militiamen are not subject to high discipline and they can be under life threatening situations.

[nate895]

Militiamen are not subject to high discipline and they can be under life threatening situations.

When called into the actual service they are:


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

However, militia are special situations since they are meant only to protect against foreign invasion. The military, on the other hand, can conduct an invasion of its own if ordered to do so (lawfully, of course). So, militia discipline should be much less severe based on the fact half of the militia will, undoubtedly, poop its pants and run at the first sight of the enemy. However, there should still be some discipline to minimize this, especially when we are defending our homes from a foreign invader. Don't ask me how that discipline should work since I don't know.

[dude58677]

The founders intended for the military to repel invasion. Both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 never went overseas. Mark and Reprisal was supposed to hunt down the big fish overseas. The Navy was only meant to guard the coast.

[heavenlyboy34]

The founders intended for the military to repel invasion. Both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 never went overseas. Mark and Reprisal was supposed to hunt down the big fish overseas. The Navy was only meant to guard the coast.

qft. A great many (the majority, IIRC) of the founding generation considered standing armies tools of tyrants.

[nate895]

The founders intended for the military to repel invasion. Both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 never went overseas. Mark and Reprisal was supposed to hunt down the big fish overseas. The Navy was only meant to guard the coast.

But they both went to Canada....

[dude58677]

But they both went to Canada....

So because they technically cross a border, you call that the same as going to Afghanistan or England?

[nate895]

So because they technically cross a border, you call that the same as going to Afghanistan or England?

No, but it was an invasion. When you're at war with someone, it's perfectly acceptable to launch an invasion. It doesn't make a difference how much water is in between you and them.

[Aldanga]

Sadly, too many people would agree with that. No order. Chaos should reign instead.
Don't be ridiculous. You don't need grades to have order. Ever heard of Montessori?

Lack of a centralized power does not necessarily negate order.

[ClayTrainor]

The Military: Where you get to become someone else's bitch, put on a costume and pretend your a hero.

[heavenlyboy34]

Don't be ridiculous. You don't need grades to have order. Ever heard of Montessori?

Lack of a centralized power does not necessarily negate order.

Winner! :D

[dude58677]

No, but it was an invasion. When you're at war with someone, it's perfectly acceptable to launch an invasion. It doesn't make a difference how much water is in between you and them.

They were not invading Canada. The war was taken into Canada. So you are arguing a technicality.

[FortisKID]

The purpose of the military is not to protect our freedom, it is to protect the state.

But isn't it the state's job to protect our freedom? ;)

[nate895]

They were not invading Canada. The war was taken into Canada. So you are arguing a technicality.

Wait, I'm arguing a technicality? I doubt the population of Quebec was much concerned about whether the war was "taken there" or it was an invasion. One way or another, soldiers were marching on foreign soil.

[mport1]

But isn't it the state's job to protect our freedom? ;)

That is what they tell us, but it is the opposite of what they actually do. Their very existence necessitates the violation of our rights.

[qh4dotcom]

Yes - and the preponderance of evidence is that the guy was born in Hawaii. You will note that the requirement to be a natural born citizen just assumes citizenship at birth - no imperative to maintain it uninterrupted - even giving the most favorable assumptions to the "birthers". As long as the states put the guy on the ballot (you know that part of the Constitution where states are the sole judge of elections). And the electors chosen by the states determine who shall become President.

The ultimate arbiter is the people as expressed by the states in all cases of dispute arising under the Constitution. Yes, the SCOTUS has usurped that power, but it is up to the states to take corrective action.

The role of the active military in all cases of dispute is to allow the Constitional process to work - the states call forth the militia to "execute the Laws of the Union" to include the Constitution. That is not a power of the Army and Navy of the United States.

Oh dear, so you trust Obama and his forged birth certificate.
So give me an example after Obama leaves office where you would protect Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution (the natural born citizen requirements).

[tnvoter]

I'm well aware of what the UCMJ is. Its purpose is to ensure a disciplined and orderly fighting force. Members of the military volunteered to become subjects of its jurisdiction and are made aware of what it entails before they sign their contract.

ask a navy sailor about how he'd be punished under the UCMJ if he declines to say the *arguably unconstitutional sailor's creed, which says to fight for "democracy and freedom around the world"- completely unnecessary after already swearing an oath to uphold the constitution, but that's a whole 'nother thread in itself.

and it's also really (/sarcasm) showing true justice for that wikileaks kid... yes he broke the law... but some pretty bad rumors about how he's being treated, even if he should be locked up.

[Freedomluvinmamma30]

So, soldiers who go into the (undeclared, illegal) mideast wars are violating their oaths? Did you help with these wars? If so, why did you violate your oath to uphold the Constitution?

I think this question needs to go to Congress. Congress violated there oaths and betrayed the men and women in uniform. I know people who objected and they were either discharged or punished. I served 6 years as a medic and helped the men and women who became injured and maimed because of these conflicts.Lets not demonize the service member. Lets demonize the politicians who have no balls to stand up to the president and call our troops back. Lets not make this another Vietnam.

[Pericles]

Oh dear, so you trust Obama and his forged birth certificate.
So give me an example after Obama leaves office where you would protect Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution (the natural born citizen requirements).

The officer's obligation is to the entire Constitution, nit just the parts I personally like.

It is the duty of the states to qualify who may be a candidate and is qualified to have presidential electors pledged. It is not the job of the US Army to check the qualifications of who our fellow citizens may consider for the office of President. In the case of supposed Presidential disqualification for office, the question goes up to the JCS, who with the SecDef, would have the responsibility of determining the question. The only time I would have the authority to directly question the qualification of the President, is in the case of a direct order from the President to me, that I would have reason to believe to tbe contrary tot he Constitution. You will note that several states have passed or are considering legislation on this very subject, and I approve of those efforts to the nth degree.

To do otherwise would be prejudicial to "good order and discipline" which is the means by which the military ensures that the directive of Congress is carried out under their authority to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
It is the job of the US Senate to remove a President for disability:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[Pericles]

But they both went to Canada....

The War of 1812 is an interesting study - first, 4 states refused to call out their militias because there had been no actual invasion of the United States (at least until 1814). Second, some New York militia units refused to participate in the invasion of Canada, because that was unconstitutional. Other New York regiments did participate - one third of the invading force was made up of NY and PA militia.

part of the reason that the National Guard was created in 1903, was to get around these restrictions on the use of the militia - the national Guard being established under the power of Congress to "raise and support armies" not under the power to organize the militia - thus the National Guard is not the militia of the several states.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOCxxHQJYY&feature=related

While the military exists to protect the more perfect union (necessary tyranny) established by our Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution, and while they follow after a commander and chief (necessary tyrant), every American was born into the milia to protect the people and their Civil Purpose.
If I had to explain this as a Christian, I'd say every person is born into the militia to serve the Lord's new covenant. As my wife lives to serve me as her brotherly husband, I live to obey the brethren as we together serve the burden within the least sister amongst us.
To have a nation, there must be something more important than the sum total of our individual parts. There has to be something more than just ourselves and that isn't going to be found in The U.S. Constitution alone. Our U.S. Constitution only works when, in the collective conscience as a nation, we hold The Declaration of Independence and the Civil Purpose within it supreme over all as the ultimate ideal.

[dude58677]

Wait, I'm arguing a technicality? I doubt the population of Quebec was much concerned about whether the war was "taken there" or it was an invasion. One way or another, soldiers were marching on foreign soil.

Yes, it is a technicality. Canada was not invaded and it was barely over the border. Besides the founders were against standing armies as heavenlyboy stated.

[nate895]

Yes, it is a technicality. Canada was not invaded and it was barely over the border. Besides the founders were against standing armies as heavenlyboy stated.

For being against all standing armies, they sure managed to keep 'em fairly well.

[nate895]

The War of 1812 is an interesting study - first, 4 states refused to call out their militias because there had been no actual invasion of the United States (at least until 1814). Second, some New York militia units refused to participate in the invasion of Canada, because that was unconstitutional. Other New York regiments did participate - one third of the invading force was made up of NY and PA militia.

part of the reason that the National Guard was created in 1903, was to get around these restrictions on the use of the militia - the national Guard being established under the power of Congress to "raise and support armies" not under the power to organize the militia - thus the National Guard is not the militia of the several states.

I specifically said the militia cannot be forced to invade. That's been a principal of common law from time immemorial (that's a legal term, and it really does apply).

[Pericles]

While the military exists to protect the more perfect union (necessary tyranny) established by our Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution, and while they follow after a commander and cheif (necessary tyrant), every American was born into the milia to protect the people and their Civil Purpose.
If I had to explain this as a Christian, I'd say every person is born into the militia to serve the Lord's new covenant. As my wife lives to serve me as her brotherly husband, I live to obey the brethern as we together serve the burden within the least sister amongst us.
To have a nation, there must be something more important than the sum total of our individual parts. There has to be something more than just ourselves and that isn't going to be found in The U.S. Constitution alone. Our U.S. Constitution only works when, in the collective conscience of our nation, we hold the The Declaration of Independence and the Civil Purpose within it supreme over all things as the ultimate ideal.

This is the correct way of looking at the issue. When the feds get off the reservation, the proper and legal way to fix it is via the states. One look at my signature line and my posting history, should convince that I am all about assisting my state in seeing that the laws are duly executed. Incidentally, military officers have legal authority via Congress, that is independent of the President's. In monarchies, commissions are granted in the name of the monarch, with obedience to that monarch. Not so on the US, where Senate confirmation of an officer's rank is required, even if the commission is in force at the pleasure of the President.

Look at it the other way, once the military removed a President from office, what would then happen? The danger is that it would not end, in the manner of ancient Rome, and in the US, the tradition of non interference dates back to 1783, when some Army officers were of a mind to force Congress to perform the obligations it had incerred, and were persuaded not to follow through on the threat by George Washington.

[Pericles]

I specifically said the militia cannot be forced to invade. That's been a principal of common law from time immemorial (that's a legal term, and it really does apply).

The legal work around was the notion of US Volunteers. Congress would call for X number of regiments, and allocate the call to the states. The states would then call for militia units to volunteer, and then fill the quota via a volunteer system. This was done in the War with Mexico, War Between the States, and the Spanish American War. Typically, even in a volunteer company, only 80% to 90% of the militiamen in that company would volunteer, so individuals from other units that did not volunteer as a unit will fill out the volunteering unit. Then as the war went on, replacements for losses were an issue - the system was untidy.

[dude58677]

For being against all standing armies, they sure managed to keep 'em fairly well.

They were against them and they tried to limit them as much as possible by using militia's. Instead corrupt politicians kept them afloat. This comes back to the issue of whether we have a original constitution or whether it is a living Constiution w and you advocate a living constitution for the statement you just made. Your logic is also on the premise that robbing banks is legal because people rob banks. Which is absurd.

[manny229]

I'm not sure about other states but New York has an official state milita, its volunteer, 3 year enistment, but you can dropout anytime. You must be reasonably fit, age 18-65, and you must attend a 1 week "boot camp". HOWEVER its an unarmed militia and it mostly acts a support for the NY national guard.
I think the idea of a true state militia is dead.

[Pericles]

I'm not sure about other states but New York has an official state milita, its volunteer, 3 year enistment, but you can dropout anytime. You must be reasonably fit, age 18-65, and you must attend a 1 week "boot camp". HOWEVER its an unarmed militia and it mostly acts a support for the NY national guard.
I think the idea of a true state militia is dead.

The Texas State Guard exists to run FEMA camps. They don't have any guns either. Have we spotted a trend?

[nate895]

They were against them and they tried to limit them as much as possible by using militia's. Instead corrupt politicians kept them afloat. This comes back to the issue of whether we have a original constitution or whether it is a living Constiution w and you advocate a living constitution for the statement you just made. Your logic is also on the premise that robbing banks is legal because people rob banks. Which is absurd.

Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with framing of the Constitution. I'm reading in the Constitution-and all it says is that Congress cannot fund an Army for more than 2 years at a time. So, I guess Congress has to renew the Army every two years.

I also find it incredibly ridiculous and unfair to accuse me of favoring some kind of living constitution (AKA whatever the nine divines on the SCOTUS say it is at the time), and I never suggested something was correct because people do it. I simply said that the U.S. has kept a standing army of various sizes since day one, and there wasn't some howl of protest like there was with the Alien and Sedition Act (including from Framers on that one).

[Pericles]

Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with framing of the Constitution. I'm reading in the Constitution-and all it says is that Congress cannot fund an Army for more than 2 years at a time. So, I guess Congress has to renew the Army every two years.

I also find it incredibly ridiculous and unfair to accuse me of favoring some kind of living constitution (AKA whatever the nine divines on the SCOTUS say it is at the time), and I never suggested something was correct because people do it. I simply said that the U.S. has kept a standing army of various sizes since day one, and there wasn't some howl of protest like there was with the Alien and Sedition Act (including from Framers on that one).

For most of the history of the US, the regular Army was small and mainly engaged in the business of killing native Americans, which met with the general approval of the citizens.

Only with the start of the empire just over 100 years ago, has the size of the Army and its tasks been an issue, and in the post WWII era, has the US Army been in the top 10 in the world in terms of size.

[dude58677]

For most of the history of the US, the regular Army was small and mainly engaged in the business of killing native Americans, which met with the general approval of the citizens.

Only with the start of the empire just over 100 years ago, has the size of the Army and its tasks been an issue, and in the post WWII era, has the US Army been in the top 10 in the world in terms of size.

Thank you!

[dude58677]

Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with framing of the Constitution. I'm reading in the Constitution-and all it says is that Congress cannot fund an Army for more than 2 years at a time. So, I guess Congress has to renew the Army every two years.

I also find it incredibly ridiculous and unfair to accuse me of favoring some kind of living constitution (AKA whatever the nine divines on the SCOTUS say it is at the time), and I never suggested something was correct because people do it. I simply said that

the U.S. has kept a standing army of various sizes since day one, and there wasn't some howl of protest like there was with the
Alien and Sedition Act (including from Framers on that one).

In the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, State Constitutions, etc all said that a standing army was a danger to liberty. You suggesting that the army is renewed every two years is someone looking for a loophole. Taking the quote out of context and twisting it to fit your agenda ESP when at that era all the evidence was to the contrary to what you are alleging. It also doesn't matter that Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Constitution because the rest of the the anti-federalists still wrote the bill of rights. The federalists still limited the standing army by limiting to be appropiated for two years only after Congress declares war.

[demolama]

Failure during the War of 1812 with the militia to conduct war in Canada and inferior officers led to not only the creation of West Point and similar academies for uniform training for officers, it also boosted the ranks of the standing army slightly to be garrisoned among the many new forts they constructed to better defend the country.

Yes a standing army has always been around, but in miniscule numbers that any state militia could put down should they attempt a coup.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

For most of the history of the US, the regular Army was small and mainly engaged in the business of killing native Americans, which met with the general approval of the citizens.

Only with the start of the empire just over 100 years ago, has the size of the Army and its tasks been an issue, and in the post WWII era, has the US Army been in the top 10 in the world in terms of size.

Wait! We can't be ruled by an empire for such an implication would mean that it is being ruled by a foreign barbarian!

[JVParkour]

as a 7 year veteran of the army who has served 2 deployments to iraq i can say that there are plenty of soldiers out there who love our country and are fed up with the government. i encourage everyone to check out the following. these are soldiers you can count on to defend freedom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUQ_N_vHc0&feature=player_embedded

www.ivaw.org
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Wow. That first video was awesome! Welcome to the forums, and thanks for the great video.

[Pericles]

Failure during the War of 1812 with the militia to conduct war in Canada and inferior officers led to not only the creation of West Point and similar academies for uniform training for officers, it also boosted the ranks of the standing army slightly to be garrisoned among the many new forts they constructed to better defend the country.

Yes a standing army has always been around, but in miniscule numbers that any state militia could put down should they attempt a coup.
West Point was founded in 1802, so it had already produced a small number of company grade officers by the start of the war. The perception of the poor performance of the militia, led Congress to increase the size of the regular army during the war, going from 8 infantry regiments (there had been 7 in 1811) to 44 regiments of infantry. Most were the first RINOs (Regulars In Name Only), and the army went back to 8 regiments after the war.

The performance of the militia was in fact haphazard (like the regulars), the deciding factor being the competence of the commander (as is usually the case). While Bladensburg was a complete defeat for the US, and led to the burning of Washington, one militia unit (5th Regiment, MD Militia) actually attacked, temporarily drove back the opposing British regiment (44th Foot), and quit the field only when ordered to do so. The 5th Maryland later killed the British commander of the invasion. Not all militia units were failures.

After the war, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun (yep - same one) devised a plan for an expandable regular army, and the plan was rejected by Congress in favor of retaining the existing militia system, and appropriating $100,000 per year to arm and equip state militias.

[demolama]

Yeah... West point was founded in 1802.. but the War forced them to increased their size of admittance in order to better organize and train officers to form a uniform officer corp.

Failure to invade a sovereign nation was the failure of the militia... not the militia system itself.

Calhoun was a nationalist during this time period until he talked with John Taylor of Caroline

[Agorism]

No we can't.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

West Point was founded in 1802, so it had already produced a small number of company grade officers by the start of the war. The perception of the poor performance of the militia, led Congress to increase the size of the regular army during the war, going from 8 infantry regiments (there had been 7 in 1811) to 44 regiments of infantry. Most were the first RINOs (Regulars In Name Only), and the army went back to 8 regiments after the war.

The performance of the militia was in fact haphazard (like the regulars), the deciding factor being the competence of the commander (as is usually the case). While Bladensburg was a complete defeat for the US, and led to the burning of Washington, one militia unit (5th Regiment, MD Militia) actually attacked, temporarily drove back the opposing British regiment (44th Foot), and quit the field only when ordered to do so. The 5th Maryland later killed the British commander of the invasion. Not all militia units were failures.

After the war, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun (yep - same one) devised a plan for an expandable regular army, and the plan was rejected by Congress in favor of retaining the existing militia system, and appropriating $100,000 per year to arm and equip state militias.

Little known fact is how the U.S. army lost to the Mexican army in the war of 1845, strategically speaking, falling under seige to them. If it weren't for the poor araments used by the Mexican army, we would all be speaking Spanish today. First off, to even fight that war, the Texas Rangers had to lead the U.S. army into Mexico as the "special force milia" knew how to fight and the U.S. army were like puppys wet behind the ear. In the territory in and around Texas, the Commanches owned everything and when they needed something, they just rode into Mexico and took it. That is why the Anglos were invited into Texas to colonize it in the first place. But then Santa Anna tossed out the Mexican Constitution and abolished the Mexican government declaring himself a dictator.
Anyway, the nation of Texas decided to become a state by treaty because it felt like it needed the help of the United States to fend off Mexico. With the Rangers leading the U.S. army into Mexico, it was a while before the Mexican government even knew they were there. Seems the sophisticated gentlemen from Westpoint got quite offended at these Texas Rangers and the willfulness they expressed in fighting the kind of "take no prisoner" kind of battles the Mexican army, the Mexican bandits, the Comanches, and the Texas Rangers had always fought in this territory. So, they asked them to go back home to Texas.
Well, immediately after that, the sophisticates got themselves pinned down. In desperation they sent for the Rangers to return, but only with the request that the Rangers join the U.S. Army. As this would have violated the treaty the nation of Texas had signed with the nation of the United States, the Rangers refused. Seeing that they were about to be defeated by the Mexican army, the U.S. army relented and asked the Rangers to please help in their dire situation. The rest is history. The Texas Rangers not only helped in freeing up the inept U.S. forces, but they led them to ultimate victory.
In other words, a militia of 250 Texas Rangers saved a U.S. army numbering in the thousands as well as saved the United States from defeat. So, any idea that the milia is somehow inferior is pure horseshit.
In the end, the nation of Texas never needed the U.S., but as a Texan I am proud to be an American because of our Founding Fathers and The Declaration of Independence. As the sovereignty of the State of Texas is being challenged today, this situation isn't so because of the willfulness of Texans; but, the crisis in will is being caused by interference from a federal government based thousands of miles away in Washington D.C..