Omar Bennett
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies. However, the appropriation of money for this purpose is limited to a term of two years. This was prompted by the fear of standing armies. The US has had a standing army for a long time, and with the emergence of the Soviet Union after World War II, it became essential to maintain a large standing army, bringing novel questions about the jurisdiction of courts-martial. The Supreme Court has rejected contentions that compulsory military service violates the Thirteenth Amendment.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The US Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies
- The framers of the Constitution limited money appropriations for the army to two years
- The 13th Amendment forbids involuntary servitude, which includes conscription
- The Supreme Court rejected the 13th Amendment claim, upholding the power of Congress to mobilise an army
- The US has maintained a standing army since World War II
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies
The Constitution also includes a provision that limits the appropriation of money for this purpose to a term of two years. This limitation was included out of fear of standing armies, aiming to prevent the long-term allocation of funds for military purposes. However, this clause has been interpreted narrowly, with Solicitor-General Hoyt ruling in 1904 that the limitation only applies to the strict sense of the word 'support' and does not extend to appropriations for military operations or common defence.
The power of Congress to raise and support armies has been challenged over time, particularly regarding compulsory military service and the jurisdiction of courts-martial. During the Revolutionary War, at least nine states sanctioned compulsory military service, and a compulsory draft law was adopted in 1863 without being challenged in federal courts. However, the Selective Service Act of 1917 was attacked on several grounds, including deprivation of states' rights to a well-regulated militia and the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, affirming the paramount power of the national government to raise and support armies.
The jurisdiction of courts-martial has also been a subject of debate, especially during peacetime and for non-military offenses. In O'Callahan v. Parker, the Court held that court-martial jurisdiction was lacking to try servicemen for crimes not considered "service-connected". However, this decision was later overruled in Solorio v. United States, where the Court upheld the constitutionality of courts-martial jurisdiction.
Hamilton and Madison's Constitutional Vision: A Contrast
You may want to see also
The framers of the Constitution limited money appropriations for the army to two years
The US Constitution grants Congress the power to raise and support an army. However, the framers of the Constitution, aware of the historical detriment of these powers to the liberties of Englishmen, limited money appropriations for the army to two years. This limitation was included out of fear of standing armies, stipulating that "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years".
This limitation on appropriations was addressed in 1904 when the question arose of whether this provision would be violated if the government contracted to pay royalties for the use of a patent in constructing military equipment, with payments extending beyond the two-year limit. Solicitor-General Hoyt ruled that such a contract would be lawful, interpreting the limitation as applying only to appropriations directly related to raising and supporting armies, rather than broader military operations or common defence. Attorney General Clark supported this interpretation in 1948, stating there was "no legal objection" to Congress appropriating funds for military purposes beyond two years if the funds were for purposes beyond the strict sense of raising and supporting armies.
The US has had a standing army for a long time, which has expanded significantly, particularly after World War II due to the emergence of the Soviet Union. This large standing army has raised novel constitutional questions regarding the jurisdiction of courts-martial and the rights of citizen soldiers. For instance, the Supreme Court has scrutinized legislation that strips away fundamental rights guaranteed to citizen soldiers under the Constitution.
Additionally, there has been disagreement about the court-martial trial of servicemen for non-military offences. In O'Callahan v. Parker, the Court held that court-martial jurisdiction was lacking to try servicemen for crimes not considered "service-connected". However, this was later overruled in Solorio v. United States, where the Court upheld the constitutionality of court-martial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Selective Service Act of 1917, which introduced conscription, was attacked as depriving states of their right to a "well-regulated militia" and imposing involuntary servitude, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rejected these contentions, affirming the national government's paramount power to raise and support armies.
People in the 15 Departments: How Long Are Their Terms?
You may want to see also
The 13th Amendment forbids involuntary servitude, which includes conscription
The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to raise and support armies. However, there is a limitation on appropriations for this purpose, stating that no money can be appropriated for this use for longer than two years. This was included due to a fear of standing armies.
The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution abolished slavery and forbids involuntary servitude, and this has been interpreted to include conscription. During the Revolutionary War, at least nine of the States sanctioned compulsory military service, and in 1863, a compulsory draft law was adopted without being challenged in the federal courts. However, the Selective Service Act of 1917 was attacked on the grounds that it imposed involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment.
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that conscription does not violate the 13th Amendment, but it has indicated that it does not believe this to be the case. During the Vietnam War, an undeclared war, the Court upheld a conviction for burning a draft card, indicating that it does not believe conscription to be constrained by the need for a formal declaration of war.
In Butler v. Perry (1916), the Court held that:
> the term involuntary servitude was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which in practical operation would tend to produce like undesirable results.
However, in Selective Draft Law Cases (1918), the Court held that:
> as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
Qualities of a Representative: Key Characteristics to Look For
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Supreme Court rejected the 13th Amendment claim, upholding the power of Congress to mobilise an army
The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed on January 31, 1865, abolished slavery and prohibited involuntary servitude. In 1863, a compulsory draft law was enacted, requiring men to serve in the army. However, the Selective Service Act of 1917 was challenged on the grounds that it violated the 13th Amendment by imposing involuntary servitude.
The Supreme Court rejected this 13th Amendment claim, upholding Congress's power to mobilise an army. The Court's decision set a precedent for the government's authority to require military service, even during peacetime. This power is derived from the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to "raise and support armies."
The Court's ruling considered the historical context of the English king's power to raise and maintain armies, which was transferred to Congress in the Constitution. The limitation on appropriations for the army, specified in the Constitution, was interpreted as applying only to the direct raising and supporting of armies, not to related expenses such as equipment and defence.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold Congress's power to mobilise an army has had significant implications for the country's military capabilities and national defence. It reflects the complex balance between individual rights and the government's responsibilities in maintaining national security.
While the Supreme Court's ruling addressed the legal questions surrounding conscription, it also highlighted the importance of scrutinising legislation that affects the fundamental rights of citizens serving in the armed forces. This is especially relevant during peacetime, when large numbers of citizens may be serving in the military.
Roe v. Wade: Constitutional Conflict or Misinterpretation?
You may want to see also
The US has maintained a standing army since World War II
The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to raise and support armies. However, the framers of the Constitution included the limitation that "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years". This was included out of fear of standing armies. Solicitor-General Hoyt ruled in 1904 that such a contract would be lawful, and Attorney General Clark supported this in 1948, stating that there was no legal objection to a request to Congress to appropriate.
Despite this, the US has maintained a standing army since World War II. The emergence of the Soviet Union as a threat after World War II meant that, for the first time, the US felt it essential to maintain a large standing army in peacetime. This has brought up questions about the jurisdiction that courts-martial may exercise over citizen soldiers. The US Army was divided into the Regular Army and the Army Reserve in 1946, and the Army of the United States was reinstated during the Korean War. Since the Vietnam War, officers' permanent rank is their RA rank.
The US has had a standing army for much longer than 50 years, albeit a much smaller one. The country's first permanent, professional land-based military force was the Continental Army, which was succeeded by the Regular Army. The United States military realized it needed a well-trained standing army following St. Clair's Defeat in 1791, when a force led by General Arthur St. Clair was almost entirely wiped out by the Northwestern Confederacy. The First American Regiment was established in 1784 and gradually turned into a Regular regiment known as the 1st Infantry.
Leadership Roles: Understanding the House Leader's Title and Responsibilities
You may want to see also
