Ignorant About the American Constitution?

Capitalism Magazine ^ | December 10, 2003 | Walter Williams

[Ammender]

Prohibition was not only a disaster as a law; including it in the Constitution was an outrageous offence to everything else in the Constitution. The framers were probably rolling over in their graves.

The Constitution is a legal expression of the most basic ideology of the people of the United States. It is not a place for making trendy laws about things of minimal importance. It is a place to set forward the method by which the country will be run. While I want very much to make some changes to the Constitution, they are all on subjects already covered to some degree in its text.

[Ammender]

[i]The existance and constant maintenance of our standing Armies today is not what the FF wanted or authorized.[/i]

One of the main arguments made for this new constitutional nation was that it would allow for the nation to live without a large stading army. This was favorable for the purpose of avoiding tyrrany. However, it was also clear that a small army would be needed to protect the northern and southern borders and maybe even the western (since the states did not control the entire continent. I agree with you that the way things work now is on some level contrary to their vision (not entirely, since our army may not operate domestically- I believe- while the national guard -a modern sort of militia in my limited understanding- may... at least that is my understanding of something I know very little about). However, I disagree with you when you say that they did not authorize it. Congress has the authority to "raise and support Armies". As long as "Appropriations of Money to that use" are not for longer than two years, Congress may continually fund the military (by simply reappropriating funds).

[First_Salute]

The Constitution’s father, James Madison said:

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”