The Constitutional Basis for Defense as a Federal Responsibility Part I
A Constitutional Basis for Defense
By Jim Talent
About the Author
Jim Talent
Distinguished Fellow
The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
Those who have not done so recently would benefit from studying what the United States Constitution says about the federal government’s responsibility to provide for the common defense. Most Americans had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution when they were children, so they are aware that one of the purposes of the document was to “provide for the common defense.” But they are not aware of the extent to which the document shows the Founders’ concern for national security.
Providing for the Common Defense
In brief, the Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.
National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.
Article Two establishes the President as the government’s chief executive officer. Much of that Article relates to the method for choosing the President and sets forth the general executive powers of his office, such as the appointment and veto powers. The only substantive function of government specifically assigned to the President relates to national security and foreign policy, and the first such responsibility granted him is authority to command the military; he is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century.
But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.
National defense is exclusively the function of the national government. Under our Constitution, the states are generally sovereign, which means that the legitimate functions of government not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article One, Section 10 does specifically prohibit the states, except with the consent of Congress, from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or engaging in war, the only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded. (This was necessary because, when the Constitution was written, primitive forms of communication and transportation meant that it could take weeks before Washington was even notified of an invasion.)
The great irony of our time is that the bigger the federal government has become, the less well it has performed its priority function of providing for the national defense. For example, Congress spent $787 billion in the “stimulus” bill last year, yet not a dime of it was spent on military procurement or modernization—despite the fact that America is in greater danger today than it has been at any time since Communism was threatening Europe in the late 1940s.
continued in Part II
By Jim Talent
About the Author
Jim Talent
Distinguished Fellow
The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
Those who have not done so recently would benefit from studying what the United States Constitution says about the federal government’s responsibility to provide for the common defense. Most Americans had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution when they were children, so they are aware that one of the purposes of the document was to “provide for the common defense.” But they are not aware of the extent to which the document shows the Founders’ concern for national security.
Providing for the Common Defense
In brief, the Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.
National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.
Article Two establishes the President as the government’s chief executive officer. Much of that Article relates to the method for choosing the President and sets forth the general executive powers of his office, such as the appointment and veto powers. The only substantive function of government specifically assigned to the President relates to national security and foreign policy, and the first such responsibility granted him is authority to command the military; he is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century.
But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.
National defense is exclusively the function of the national government. Under our Constitution, the states are generally sovereign, which means that the legitimate functions of government not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article One, Section 10 does specifically prohibit the states, except with the consent of Congress, from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or engaging in war, the only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded. (This was necessary because, when the Constitution was written, primitive forms of communication and transportation meant that it could take weeks before Washington was even notified of an invasion.)
The great irony of our time is that the bigger the federal government has become, the less well it has performed its priority function of providing for the national defense. For example, Congress spent $787 billion in the “stimulus” bill last year, yet not a dime of it was spent on military procurement or modernization—despite the fact that America is in greater danger today than it has been at any time since Communism was threatening Europe in the late 1940s.
continued in Part II
For example. If people were educated they would view a move against the Obama Regime and the pending socialist follow on as Counter Revolution not a Revolution and then discover the military has already been assigned that job so it' s a. legal b. required and c. honorable thing to pursue.
One doesn't learn that in high school Civics 101 anymore.
You and I are agreeing too often.
Now I feel better.
Cambridge Dictionary British Version
to behave in a silly, stupid, or annoying way:
There'll be a serious accident sooner or later if people don't stop playing silly buggers.
the US version
slow-witted often in combination (dumb-ass)
If ypu don't agree there is one more definition in the urbandictionary that may be more to your liking.
The starting point is Constitution 101, 202 and a faster paced not so in depth introduction with as I said much more available all at no charge. The Bernie and Milleniums shoudl be estatic there really is such a thing as a free education ...minus the time and personal effort of listening to taped lecturesd and studying. They even provide a test sequence to gauge yourself. For objectivists it's all about self and adding the study of philosophy behind a working government. or lack thereof.
There are some who as the British say play at silly buggers one can just ignore them but plenty who will engage in serious discussion without the need for the crutches of Yodaic Aphorisms but with the need for rindividual reasoning and thinking.
I particularly invite the participation of our men and women in the Armed Forces having beent hat route myself. Never fear I am NOT a REMF but more especially the current members of the teams and the groups.
Enjoy the material or even just the conversation and the discussioin or debating. You will find all three types of particiapants here. Righteous, Debate Sakers and those that apply lessons learned.
Education is for those who never stop learning and to quote Mr. Frank Zappa if you want an education go to the library - if you want to get laid go to College. That Mother of Invention spoke the truth in thhose two sentences.
Welcome to our library.
Many of the Founders understandably didn't trust a national government with the power to keep standing armies during peacetime. The Constitutional Convention debated a complete ban on the practice, and though they didn't enact one, the federal government did in fact go without a standing army from 1783 to 1812 and again from 1815 to 1845. (The Navy and Marines were not disbanded, and fought in Tripoli.)
The Constitution allows state militias to mobilize and fight without approval from Washington if actually attacked or in imminent danger, and that was enough by itself to handle the dozens of Indian wars during that period.
Declaring war is supposed to be reserved to Congress, in order to make it more difficult to start wars for stupid reasons. But that seems to have gone by the wayside when Teddy Roosevelt established that he could send the army or navy wherever he wanted as Commander in Chief and Congress couldn't do anything about it except to stop appropriating funds. That is only one of many ways our Constitutional system of government has become, and still is, broken. Obama has started three wars, and at least two of them were not authorized by congress, in the 2001 AUMF or anywhere else.
And I agree with you that a lot of the "defense" budget today is wasted, largely because the DoD has become a huge, self-serving bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, you seem to be asserting that the federal government is not doing the job of defense well enough, but you don't seem to have given any evidence beyond your bald assertion that "America is in greater danger today..." If you have any, or better yet a proposal that would deal with that danger, I'd like to hear it.
We seem t have accomplished that to some extent.
There are two clear reasons to even have government, One is defense and the other is cooperative building - infrastructure - if you will - that are beyond the capabilities of a single individual. Beyond this article in the Hillsdale Course going beyond their brief is clearly discussed and referenced.
Really I tried to decipher it.
I would say the primary reason is to enhance certain individuals insider trading privileges. They are called Congressionals. Another reason would be to enhance the payout to defense contractors and suippliers and the two are related. What the auithor of the article said is up the author of the article but that url will lead you to dozens of such comment sheets.
One could foresee mobs of gangs would spring up and could become so large that individuals would be unable to protect themselves from them. Thats one argument for a limited government larger than any mob. Another is protection from mobs outside the country.
In essence the limited government idea really springs from the concept of allies- you and I get together to better ward off the bad guys. The problem comes in when there are 300 million of us, and getting everyone to agree who the bad guys are, whats "bad", and what do we do about it. I am not sure its practical to get 300 million people to agree on anything. Having 50 different "states" seems a better solution
It's our fault for not binding with those principals and holding our representation's feet to the fire!
The only valid purpose for government is for the protection of the individual; his property and his contracts...no more, no less. All else is the "Individuals" responsibility... just like every individual cell in your body.
The failure has nothing to do with the social contract, nor the Constitution. The failure is in failing to use it as intended and a very imperfect understanidng but then there are now other similar versions, Panama for one, that you might find more to your liking.
We have a large enough siupply of couch potato whiners that wish to suck up our resources without offering anything constructive. AKA a free moocher.
Question? What exactly have you done to effect change? That would be an interesting read especially to thoise of us who fought long and hard to dump the draft but found and find little support until the possibility of being put in uniform rears it's ugly head.
Ah the "you stayed on the playground, and so you consent to being bullied" argument, again. That old chestnut never gets old.
But I've long since stopped trying to pretend that anything you say makes a lick of sense.
a. I agreed with the last part completlely. '"if it's worth doing enough will come forward and if they do not it isn't worth doing.""
b. But the initial question was a commentary on the sparcity, paucity or absence of US History and Civics in the country today.
In the first article some seventeen reasons and requirements are given if I remember the number correctly. Most of the responsibility of Congress is the answer to the question.
I advised the individual to read the Citizens Handlbook - The Constitution. Not that hard a task that document along with the Declaration of Independence is scarcely 5,000 words - A good Magazine article in length.
I then advised him to go find his high school civics teacher or if it wasn't taught i should have added the school board.
and jack slap the crap out them for sending him and others like him into the world so ill prepared.
I deleted that part in the other thread. Added it back for this one.
Never did i think anyone in this forum would be that unfamiliar with those two documents.
Hillsdale will give iyou the whole course or group of courses at no charge you may have noticed them mentioned . The companion volume for that course in paperback is quite affordable from Amazon.
Considering our two major candidates seem well steeped in the hand book for life in a Socialist Democracy I thought better to remind those followers of life in a Constitutional Republic.
That military can defend your own economic interests. You can decide for yourself whether or not you want to empower them to defend the interests of non-contributory parties. (I would recommend not doing so, the same as how subscription-based fire services won't put out your fire if you didn't get a subscription in advance, as a ... motivator.)
But I put it to you: it is in your interest to defend certain properties and interests of non-contributing parties, especially if your war becomes that much harder to fight once certain industrial capacities, inventions, etc. fall into enemy hands.
And you're absolutely right that it might be determined that it's in the interests of the contributors to defend some portion of the non-contributors' territories, for the betterment of the contributors' position (ie, it costs more to push people off the shores than it costs to keep them from landing in the first place), but that's strictly a decision for the partnership to decide, and nobody else.