Posted on May 30, 2015
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
7.51K
32
25
3
3
0
Where does the Marine Corps fit into this scheme? What about the Air Force?
Posted in these groups: United states army logo ArmyNavy NavyImgres Constitution
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 5
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
9
9
0
Edited >1 y ago
First, the USMC is a Maritime "Corps" and Part of the Navy. It was designed as protective force for the Navy in essence, and has evolved into a Littoral force.

Second, the Navy was considered ESSENTIAL to a young Nation (remember Big Ocean), and less likely to cause long term issues and abuses of powers. That's why the Navy Clause requires we "maintain" a Navy.

The Army however was feared. Armies can be used "against" a Populace. So they wanted to insure that there safeguards in place. Budgetary constraints so had to constantly think about it.

The Air Force was a new concept, and is Legislatively mandated as opposed to Constitutionally.
(9)
Comment
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
>1 y
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;"
(1)
Reply
(0)
1LT William Clardy
1LT William Clardy
>1 y
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.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
>1 y
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.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
>1 y
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.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Ahmed Faried
3
3
0
Can you clarify?
(3)
Comment
(0)
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
>1 y
Thanks for responding, but I'd rather you clarified by reading the Constitution and voicing your interpretation.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
CPT Ahmed Faried
>1 y
wow alright then.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SCPO Investigator
0
0
0
The Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE any specific branch of the military. ARTICLE ONE actually spells out that the ONLY constitutionally-mandated responsibility of the federal government towards the citizens of this country is: ...provide for the common defense... That's all it says. PERIOD. Everything else is subsequent federal statutes passed over the years. You asked about the actual US Constitution, and that's all it says about anything remotely military. My good friend and fellow Mason/Shriner, Senator Chuck Grassley, IA (R), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has spoken at some large events I was in charge of, and he loves to remind the audience of that very issue in just about every speech he delivers. He believes that it's very important that every American knows and understands that very salient point.
(0)
Comment
(0)
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
>1 y
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?
(0)
Reply
(0)
SCPO Investigator
SCPO (Join to see)
>1 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG James Doherty
SSG James Doherty
>1 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SCPO Investigator
SCPO (Join to see)
>1 y
ANYONE ELSE???
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close