Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Dayton3, Mar 30, 2019.
Letters of marque and reprisal are available.
It doesn't take "several decades" to do that.
Does the Constitution require the use of letters of marque and reprisal?
There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.
less nukes and less troops.
who says we need to be able to maintain a massive nuclear arsenal and be ready to fight two seperate medium size wars at the same time?
There is a common defense clause and a war clause.
We were attacked and Congress declared war through the form of an AUMF.
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
Nuclear weapons are basically a microscopic part of U.S. defense spending. And our nuclear arsenal is already a fraction of what it was a couple of decades ago.
What if we are engaged in a medium sized war and another nation takes advantage of our involvement and launches an attack of their own.
What are we supposed to do? Tell them to wait?
what if we are engaged in 5 wars and a sixth country decides to attack?
what if...what if...what if????????
I knew you were going to say something like that. The U.S. doesn't have that many potential enemies with the medium sized war capability.
Why are we having security issues in our free States?
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
We have no need for any common offense nor general warfare.
Our Constitution is Express not Implied in Any way.
The idea that the 2nd Amendment is to there for the defense of the U.S. (while the original intent) has been a fiction from BEFORE it was ever even ratified.
The 2nd Amendment is based on two major things:
1) The writers of the constitution had a fixation on "militia". Going back to Bunker Hill, there was an obsession in the states with the idea of "citizen soldiers answering the call, hoisting their fowling pieces" and going off to be victoriously led into battle by a handful of professionals.
This wasn't true even in the Revolutionary War and it certainly is not now.
2) The writers of the constitution were leery of having a standing army and most especially paying for one. So by putting an Amendment in the Constitution that specifically emphasized a "militia" they hoped to provide for an army without actually paying for it.
I am not sure what you mean. The People are the militia of the United States and of their own free State.
There is no such Thing as any form of militia of Individuals in our federal doctrine.
US Constitution gives Congress the power to tax inorder to provide for the general welfare
Before we had a 2nd Amendment, we had a war clause.
On 9/11, we were attacked by a foreign power. Congress responded to this threat to the common defense by declaring war through an AUMF.
What is "AUMF"?
Authorization of Use of Military Force. The modern Congressional euphemism for declaration of war.
The Pentagon has one wing on the third floor with a hundred cubicles where these people sit around five days per week coming up with military acronyms.
AUMF = Authorization for the Use of Military Force
LCS = Little Crappy Ship
REMF = Rear Echelon Mother F#####
BAM = Broad Ass Marine aka woman Marine.
I am ok with cutting spending, we need to cut spending by ending the Bush wars
you need more money, create a war tax.....
so you want to wall off our beaches.. ect... the entire country?
the fact is, most illegals come here legally
No they don't.
The vast majority of visas overstays go back home with in a year.
Reminds me of the account in the book "Blind Man's Bluff" about U.S. submarine operations during the Cold War.
One new crewman on a U.S. attack submarine endeared himself forever to his new commander by calling him
Number One Motherf##### Whose In Charge.
I read the book.
do you agree that the general welfare cannot and must not be confused with the general warfare?
Separate names with a comma.