What we support and defend

[carl]

Note the language of the constitution and the tremendous difference between Congress's duty regarding "Armies" (not "the Army, but Armies as in many different ones raised for specific conflicts and purpose.).

“Raise and Support” various “Armies” as needed is very different from “Provide and Maintain” an enduring “Navy” for reasons that are still valid and fundamental to our national ethos and geostrategic reality.

Bob:

I wanted to comment to you about this.

Right after the part about providing for a Navy it says "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces;". It doesn't say "land forces" and "the naval force" so that seems to me sort of hazy, not the clear distinction you make. Then right after that it talks about calling forth the Militia to do things. It seems to make a distinction between the Militia and land forces.

Then later on it says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,". It doesn't say Armies it says Army. Again it seems the Constitution is recognizing the existence of an Army. Then right after that it says "and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;". So the Constitution seems to be making a distinction between the Army and the Militia as if they are two different things.

Then in Amendment V the Constitution speaks again of "the land and naval forces, or in the Militia,". So all in all, I am not so sure the Constitution doesn't recognize the that there will not be an Army.