Eleanor Finch
The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to raise and support armies, as outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, also known as the Army Clause. This clause, often analysed from a historical perspective, has been a topic of debate, with some arguing that it only allows Congress to appropriate funds for a period of no longer than two years, while others interpret it as allowing for the maintenance of a standing army. The US has maintained a standing army for several decades, with the First Congress officially recognising the US Army under the Constitution in 1789.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Who has the power to raise and maintain the army? | Congress has the power to raise and maintain the army, but the President has the power to command it. |
| How often does Congress need to renew funding? | Congress must renew funding for the army every two years. |
| Who is responsible for the army's loyalty? | Anyone in service is required to take a loyalty oath to the Constitution. |
| How many people are in the army? | The standing federal army had about 800 members in 1789. In 2018, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active-duty personnel, its smallest number since 1940. |
| What are the concerns about a standing army? | There are concerns about the potential for a standing army to infringe on liberties and well-being, as well as the historical precedent of standing armies overturning governments. |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
- The US Constitution and the standing army
- Congress's authority to raise and support armies
- The role of the President and Congress in the standing army
- Historical perspective: From a nation with a deep distrust for a standing army to having one of the largest
- Court cases: O'Callahan v. Parker and Solorio v. United States
The US Constitution and the standing army
The US Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish and support the country's armed forces, including the power to raise and maintain a standing army. This power is outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution, often referred to as the Army Clause.
The Army Clause states: "The Congress shall have Power To ... raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." This clause provides checks and balances on the maintenance of a standing army by allowing the President to command the army while giving Congress the power to finance it through short-term legislation.
The inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was influenced by historical context and the framers' concerns about the potential dangers of standing armies during peacetime. The English Declaration of Rights of 1688, for example, asserted that standing armies could not be maintained without the consent of Parliament. The framers of the US Constitution were aware that similar powers had been misused in England to the detriment of liberties and well-being.
Despite the concerns about standing armies, the US has maintained one for an extended period, with its size and scope expanding significantly over time. The Revolutionary War version of the Army was formed under George Washington on June 14, 1775, to engage in the conflict with Great Britain. The Continental Congress recognised the need for an army during the fight for independence. The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, further established the ability to raise troops for the common defence of the United States.
The debate surrounding the constitutionality of a standing army continues to be a subject of discussion and interpretation. Some argue that the two-year limitation on appropriations indicates opposition to a standing army, while others interpret it as a provision that simply needs to be renewed periodically.
Child Abandonment Laws in North Carolina: Understanding the Legal Definition
You may want to see also
Congress's authority to raise and support armies
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies, as outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, also known as the Army Clause. This clause states that Congress has the authority to "raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". This means that while Congress can pass legislation to finance the military, these appropriations must be renewed every two years.
The Framers of the Constitution intentionally vested the power to raise and support armies in Congress rather than the states or the executive branch. This was to prevent the excessive concentration of military power in the hands of the president as commander-in-chief. By giving Congress the power to declare war and raise armies, the Framers established a system of checks and balances on the president's war powers.
Historically, these powers had been held by the English king, who could initiate wars and raise and maintain armies without sufficient checks and balances. The English Declaration of Rights of 1688 sought to address this by requiring the king to obtain the consent of Parliament to maintain standing armies. The Framers of the US Constitution were influenced by this historical context and sought to protect the liberties and well-being of citizens by granting these powers to Congress.
The Supreme Court has affirmed Congress's broad constitutional power to raise and regulate armies and navies. For example, in United States v. O'Brien, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of conscription acts, stating that the "power of Congress to classify and conscript manpower for military service is 'beyond question.'" Additionally, the Court has held that the states' rights to maintain militias are subordinate to the federal government's power to raise and maintain armies.
In summary, Congress has the authority to raise and support armies under the US Constitution, and this power serves as an essential check on the president's commander-in-chief powers. The Framers intentionally granted this authority to Congress to prevent the abuse of military power and protect the liberties of citizens. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld Congress's broad powers in this area, solidifying its role in shaping national defence policy.
Understanding Small Biparietal Diameter at 20-Week Scan
You may want to see also
The role of the President and Congress in the standing army
The US Constitution grants Congress the authority to raise and support armies. This authority was not intended to endow the national government with the power to raise armies, but rather to designate the federal government department that would exercise this power. The Framers of the Constitution were aware that historically, the English King had the power to initiate war and to raise and maintain armies and navies, which had been used to the detriment of the liberties and well-being of Englishmen. Thus, they vested these powers in Congress, with the understanding that the English Declaration of Rights of 1688 provided that the King could not maintain standing armies without the consent of Parliament.
Under its authority, Congress has set up a system of criminal law binding on all servicemen, with its own substantive laws, courts, procedures, and appeals procedures. Congress also has the power to legislate at the expense of traditional state sovereignty to raise and support the Armed Forces. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Torres v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, No. 20-603 (2022). Additionally, the Constitution grants Congress the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces, which includes the power to appropriate funds for the army for a period of no longer than two years.
The President, as Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and Militia of the United States, has the power to deploy American forces abroad and commit them to military operations when deemed necessary for the security and defense of the United States. This power has been debated, with opponents arguing that the authority to initiate war is vested exclusively in Congress. However, the President has the duty to repel sudden attacks and act in emergencies, and as Commander in Chief, can direct the armed forces for any purpose specified by Congress. The President also holds prime responsibility for conducting US foreign relations.
In summary, while Congress has the authority to raise and support armies, the President, as Commander in Chief, has the power to direct the armed forces and deploy them when necessary for national security and defense. The respective roles of the President and Congress in the standing army have been a subject of debate and interpretation over time.
Obstruction of Congress: Constitutional Violation or Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Historical perspective: From a nation with a deep distrust for a standing army to having one of the largest
The United States has historically had a deep distrust for standing armies, which has been reflected in its constitution and political debates. The Framers of the Constitution were aware of the potential dangers of standing armies to liberty and sought to limit their power. Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution, also known as the Army Clause, states that "The Congress shall have Power To... raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." This limitation was intended to prevent the executive branch from keeping a standing army and to ensure that Congress had control over the military's funding.
The Continental Army, formed during the Revolutionary War in 1775, worked alongside state militias to fight for independence. However, after the war, the Continental Army was greatly scaled back, reflecting concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, allowed for raising troops for the common defense but also permitted individual states to declare war under certain conditions.
Despite these early efforts to limit the power of the military, the United States has evolved to have one of the largest and most expensive standing armies in the world. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 provided checks on the military by allowing the President to command the army while giving Congress the power to finance it through short-term legislation. President George Washington played a key role in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the new Constitution in 1789.
Over time, the size and scope of the U.S. military have expanded significantly. By the Cold War period, the United States maintained a large standing army both at home and abroad, and legal debates arose regarding the constitutionality of certain military practices. The Supreme Court has held that Congress may legislate at the expense of state sovereignty to raise and support the Armed Forces. Today, the U.S. Army continues to be a prominent force globally, with hundreds of thousands of active-duty personnel.
PA's Alcohol-Related Crashes: Understanding the Law and Statistics
You may want to see also
Court cases: O'Callahan v. Parker and Solorio v. United States
The question of whether a standing army is constitutional per the US Constitution has been a topic of debate. Some argue that the article allowing Congress to maintain and support an army justifies the existence of a standing army. However, others counter that the clause only allows Congress to appropriate funds for a period of no longer than two years. While the US has had a standing army for a significant period, there doesn't seem to be a court case directly addressing this issue.
Now, regarding the court cases O'Callahan v. Parker (1969) and Solorio v. United States (1987), these cases dealt with the jurisdiction of military courts over servicemen for crimes committed:
O'Callahan v. Parker (1969)
In this case, a US Army sergeant, while on leave and in civilian attire, broke into a hotel room, assaulted a girl, and attempted rape. He was turned over to the military police, confessed, and was convicted by a court-martial for attempted rape, housebreaking, and assault. O'Callahan argued that the military court lacked jurisdiction over him as his crimes were not committed on a military post and had no connection to his military duties. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that military jurisdiction requires a "service-connection" to the offense charged.
Solorio v. United States (1987)
In this case, Richard Solorio, a member of the Coast Guard, sexually abused two young daughters of fellow coastguardsmen while on active duty in Alaska. A general court-martial was convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to try him for these crimes. Solorio argued that the military court lacked jurisdiction under O'Callahan v. Parker, as his crimes had no "service connection." However, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in O'Callahan, holding that the jurisdiction of a court-martial does not depend on the "service-connection" of the offense charged.
In conclusion, while the US has had a standing army for a long time, the court cases O'Callahan v. Parker and Solorio v. United States dealt with the jurisdiction of military courts over servicemen for crimes committed and not directly with the constitutionality of a standing army.
Texas v Johnson: Free Speech and Flag Burning
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A standing army is a permanent army that is not disbanded after a conflict or outside of times of war.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the US Constitution, also known as the Army Clause, gives Congress the power to raise and support armies. However, it also includes a limitation that no money can be appropriated for this use for longer than two years.
The framers of the Constitution were aware of the historical precedent in England where standing armies had been used to the detriment of liberties and well-being. They also recognised that in times of peace, standing armies could be dangerous to liberty and had the potential to overturn governments.
Congress has the authority to raise and support the Armed Forces, which includes the power to finance the army using short-term legislation.
The President has the power to command the standing army, including calling up state militias in certain circumstances.
