Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If congress ended all funding for all defense programs, which actions would be unconstitutional?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 06:20 PM
Original message
If congress ended all funding for all defense programs, which actions would be unconstitutional?
Help me ... which specific cuts in weapons systems would be deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Wow ... Article 1 section 8 doesn't mention any specific weapons systems.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The US Constitution does mention that Congress is supposed to "Declare War" ... but that VERY SPECIFIC Constitutional provision doesn't seem to matter any more.

Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. The war powers act of 1973 enacted by Congress covers...
war and actions that are less than war and more than peace. It is considered Constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I asked a specific question ...
Which specific cuts to military spending would be unconstitutional?

Compare my framing, to this ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=217508&mesg_id=217508
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. congress can raise fund and cut those funds...it is all Constitutional.
That is their power. They can raise funds, allocate those funds, and withdraw funds.

Providing for the common defense is a named power in the Constitution, as is raising funds. Both are Constitutional. Removing funds by canceling specific defense programs is constitutional.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

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;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


Conservatives consider some programs unconstitutional because they claim as the authority "General Welfare" but are not covered in specific powers afterwords. Some have argued that Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and even Social Security are unconstitutional, because that power isn't granted by name, only assumed under the "General Welfare" clause. They claim that the tenth amendment (below)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


says that unless it is not a named power of the U.S. Govenrment, then only the states have that power, as long as it is not prohibited.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Congress is derelict in its duty "To provide for . . . arming . . . the militia"
as defined in 10 USC 311, specifically the unorganized militia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Agree ...
I often ask them where "preemptive invasion" or the use of non-governmental contract mercenaries appears there ... usually to blank stares.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Ironically, there is a provision for the latter
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


Letter of Marque
Archaic. A letter of marque was issued by a nation to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation for the purpose of retaliating against another nation for some wrong, such as a border incursion or seizure.

Reprisal
Archaic. An act taken by a nation, short of war, to gain redress for an action taken against that nation. For example, seizing a ship in retaliation for a seized ship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Review the rest of Article 1, Section 8
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Which says in part:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions


The way I read it there is no requirement to have a standing army but one to have a navy. No specific weapons systems, but it should be a safe bet to assume the navy would need boats/ships.

There are also some interesting things said about militias there as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dems_rightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Those are powers, not requirements.
Having the power to do something isn't a requirement that one do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. What part of "To provide for . . . arming . . . the militia" don't you understand? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. At one point we had no Navy.
There were ships being built, but they were defunded and mothballed to save money. The ships in the navy--the Continental Navy, before the new constitution was ratified--were sold off.

The Barbary Pirates provided motivation for them to be finished, and we've had a Navy ever since.

The only unconstitutional aspect to not funding current weapons programs revolves around contractual obligations: Congress cannot just default good-faith contracts without cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. That doesn't support your argument.
Whatever we did prior to passage of the US Constitution doesn't matter with regard to the Constitution. The "provide" spells out that we were to build a navy. In the meantime, we could issue "Letters of Marque" to support Naval actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. This is the prior OP that led to my OP ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. It says "To provide and maintain a Navy".
Some funding would need to be set aside for Operations and Maintenance for the navy by Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. At a minimum we would need some sort of Navy and a militia.
Nothing more. Likely the defense would need to be credible. If the govt tried to have a 12 man militia for the entire country and a single Coast Guard cutter as the Navy groups likely would sue that the government isn't living up to the intent of a "common defense" which applies a credible defense.

There is no specific weapon system which would be required on Constitutional grounds. Merely the Navy and militias (air units would could be fielded by militias) are adequately funded to provide a credible defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC