Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
This was before the federal government formed an (unconstitutional!) standing army.
I'm interested to learn how this is unconstitutional. As I understand it the clause that only allows apportionments of money to last no longer than two years is to prevent the military from coasting indefinitely without congressional approval
You’re right that the wording in the constitution requires re-appropriating the army every two years. The obviously short time period along with the words written outside of the constitution by the people who wrote it made it very clear what a disastrous mistake having a federal standing army would be. Those guys were right.
Is there anything that would reasonably mean "you may not have a standing army"?
I agree you won’t find those literal words in that order. There are plenty of other parts of the constitution that have been interpreted more holistically, but not the section limiting federal armies to 2 year stints. Funny how that works.