How Does the Constitution Authorize Armies and the Navy Differently and Why?

COL Vincent Stoneking From a Constitutional standpoint, we absolutely are. There's no other way to spin it. The word Marine, means relating to the Sea.

Our founding requirements included:

"that particular care be taken, that no persons be appointed to office, or enlisted into said Battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea when required;"

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, the Constitutional distinction between Army and Navy is a bit stronger than you indicate, especially the budgetary constraint.

The 2-year restriction in the Constitution means that no Army budget can last more than 2 years. That is more than requiring a "review" -- it means that funding for the Army automatically cuts off unless explicitly renewed.

Also, from a Constitutional perspective, the Air Force's history of being created out of the Army Air Forces means that they would also inherit the Army's 2-year funding curfew.

Looking at it from the 18th century perspective, Navies take time to build (and still do for that matter), needed technically skilled professionals to crew them and the ships must be maintained regularly for them to be effective. Further, the sea was how trade was conducted, so maintaining open SLOCs was critical. This is historically unlike Armies which could theoretically be "raised" quickly and disbanded after the need. The only real standing need for an Army back then during peacetime was border/frontier security. However, the REALITY is you can't simply throw a bunch of random guys into the ranks and expect them to be successful. Hastily trained militia doesn't do well when pitted against well trained and long serving professional Regulars (something we had to re-learn more than once), hence why we've always maintained a standing Army of various sizes throughout our history. NOT maintaining one invites disaster on par with not maintaining a Navy.

I think what the Framers were going after was something akin to the Roman Legion of the Republic. Legions were not standing formations. They were formed for the campaign season, then disbanded so the legionnaires could tend their farms (or whatever craft they practiced) the rest of the year. Why it worked for Rome was that ALL citizens were required to serve under penalty so essentially you got seasoned veterans back every year. This model didn't play out in early America where the quality and discipline of the militia troops was ALWAYS questionable, whereas in Rome it was ruthlessly enforced on pain of death.

1LT William Clardy It's more "subtle" which is what gives it strength. The Raise/Maintain thing are the major differences between the Army & Navy Clauses (Art 1, Sec 8), however the budgetary requirement is the "coup de grace" in the equation.

In the modern era, it really doesn't matter though, all services are affected by an annual budget authorization/review NDAA 201X, which fulfills the intent.

As for the USAF, though it was Originally created from the Army, what it is now is no longer a child of that. It is a Legislative construct, just like the other uniformed Branches (USCG, PHS, NOAA), as opposed to a Constitutionally Mandated one.

Thanks for responding, but I'd rather you clarified by reading the Constitution and voicing your interpretation.

wow alright then.

Actually, you're quoting the Preamble, Senior Chief, not even the Constitution itself. Please review Article I, Section 8, clauses 12 and 13. If Senator Grassle doesn't know the Constitution better than that, it scares the hell out of me. What else doesn't he know?

I have no doubt he's forgotten more about the government than you'll ever know. For example, he is aware that the USCG exists which you, apparently, do not. Yes, I was quoting the Preamble, and for you to say that it is not even a part of the Constitution scares the Hell out of me. Regardless, I believe that semantics is the cause of this petty debate.

SCPO Bowerman,

Article one section 8 of the U.S. Constitution speaks of the powers of congress. In regards to military it states:
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;
I think that pretty clearly says
Armies and Navy.

ANYONE ELSE???