• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the U.S. Air Force Constitutional?

Is the U.S. Air Force Constitutional?

  • Yes, it is an implied power

    Votes: 21 80.8%
  • No, it is not mentioned in the Constitution

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Other/Don't know

    Votes: 4 15.4%

  • Total voters
    26
Which also illustrates perfectly why i'm right on this issue.
Um.... no.
If you possessed critical thinkning skills, you wouldnt simply conclude that the people you mention were right, you'd assume that they were wrong and then look into their argument. You have obviously not done that.

Since I agree with the constitutional lawyers, professors, and anyone who knows anything about the Constitution, I have the luxury of being correct.
This is an amazinly silly argument.
Simply agreeing with someone doesnt make you right -- you being able to show that you're right makes you right.
That, you fave so far failed to do.

Same thing.
Then your argument was unsound both before and after my correction.

I just did - the power to raise armies.
This has been addressed -- the canon against surplusage renders this argument unsound.

Show me exactly where the Constitution says this.
YOU quoted the clause. The clause itself says so.

Nope. The Constitution mentions the Navy specifically.
Yes, yes it does -- because the navy and the Army are not the same thing.
The Army and the Airforce are not the same thing...
 
Um.... no.
If you possessed critical thinkning skills, you wouldnt simply conclude that the people you mention were right, you'd assume that they were wrong and then look into their argument. You have obviously not done that.

Sure I have. I took a class, and some very well-educated, knowledgable people who study the Constitution told me "The US Air Force is Constitutional". Furthermore, they told me why. In addition, every Constitutional lawyer, professor, and justice would say the exact same thing.

This differs remarkable from your position. You claim the US Air Force is unconstitutional, and cannot give a satisfactory answer as to why. In addition, you can find no individual knowledgable to back up your position - hence why you have provided no reputable links, as I have done.

It's a simple matter of you forgetting to ask your Constitutional law professor this question, and him answering it for you. You obviously forgot to do that, which is why I suggested emailing him. The fact that you vehemently balk at this suggestion tells me all I need to know. You're wrong, and furthermore, you realize you are wrong. Either that or you never took a Constitutional law class, which at this point seems a very likely speculation.


This is an amazinly silly argument.
Simply agreeing with someone doesnt make you right -- you being able to show that you're right makes you right.
That, you fave so far failed to do.

Again, i've provided a link for you which proves I am right. In case there is any doubt, my position is the exact same as the law professor's. In fact, it's the exact same as every law professor and justice who has dealt with the issue.

In any case, they are much more knowledgable on this issue than yourself (obviously), so you'll excuse me if I take their word over yours. And according to the poll, so does everyone else.


Then your argument was unsound both before and after my correction.

You mean my correction; after all, you were the one struggling with the terms "foregoing" and "forementioned". You're welcome for the correction, btw.


This has been addressed -- the canon against surplusage renders this argument unsound.

And subsequently proven wrong not only by myself, but by the link I provided.


Yes, yes it does -- because the navy and the Army are not the same thing.
The Army and the Airforce are not the same thing...

Yup, and because of the Elastic Clause, the Air Force is Constitutional.

Q1: What clause, if any, of the Constitution permits Congress to establish an air force?

A: Article I, § 8, provides that Congress may "raise and support Armies," and "provide and maintain a Navy," and make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." The Air Force is "comprehended in the constitutional term 'armies.'" Laird v. Tatum 408 U.S. 1 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

The question illustrates the dangers of adopting an overly literal "strict construction" or "clause-bound interpretivist" approach to the Constitution as opposed to, say, a more expansive Marshellian approach ("it is a Constitution we are expounding here"). If we were to read the "Armies" and "a Navy", and the "land and naval" forces language literally, it would be tempting to read it as excluding an Air Force. It also shows the power (and perhaps virtue) of a structural or holistic approach to constitutional interpretation. "Land and naval forces" was, after all, all the armed forces known at the time of the Framing. Why not read that text to mean "armed forces"? Surely, after all, that is what was intended. (There is a third, wimpish, approach to this issue, which is to note that the Air Force was initially part of the Army, and thus to argue that it is just another Army, one that happens to fly.)

“A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.”

--Marshall, CJ, in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407 (1819).
As far as I can tell, no judge has ever seriously suggested that the Air Force is unconstitutional. Indeed, Justice Douglas's dictum (in dissent) may be the only discussion of this issue by a federal appellate court in the law reports.

On the one hand, this may reinforce our faith in the fundamental sanity of legal discourse. On the other hand, this absence might be traced to modern standing doctrine (the doctrine that unless at least one plaintiff has a unique and personal interest in the outcome of the case, courts should not hear it at all), which creates few opportunities for the issue to arise. Few, but not none at all, as demonstrated by the creative lawyering before the U.S. Air Force Board of Review in U.S. v. Naar, 951 WL 2298 (AFBR), 2 C.M.R. 739 (1952). There, appellant, an Air Force officer, argued unsuccessfully that he had been prosecuted unlawfully because the Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces" and the Air Force was neither. The tribunal made short work of that argument. (Source: Discourse.net: Law: Constitutional Law: Reading the Constitution Archives )
 
Sure I have. I took a class, and some very well-educated, knowledgable people who study the Constitution told me "The US Air Force is Constitutional". Furthermore, they told me why. In addition, every Constitutional lawyer, professor, and justice would say the exact same thing.
And you never once said to yourself "might they be wrong".
Great education you have there.

This differs remarkable from your position. You claim the US Air Force is unconstitutional, and cannot give a satisfactory answer as to why.
The answer I gave is VERY satisfactory to anyone with any degree of intellectual curiosity -- the power to create it, unlike the Army and the Navy, is not listed in the Constitution.

If you think I am wrong, please cite the clause that gives such a specific power regarding the air force.

Again, i've provided a link for you which proves I am right.
No... you have provided a link to someone's opinion, one you have failed to question. That doesnt make you right, that makes you lazy.

You mean my correction; after all, you were the one struggling with the terms "foregoing" and "forementioned". You're welcome for the correction, btw.
Fact remains:
Your argument was unsound both before and after the correction.

And subsequently proven wrong not only by myself, but by the link I provided.
See above.
You and your link have proven nothing, other than some peolle think something, and that you are intellectually lazy.

`
Yup, and because of the Elastic Clause, the Air Force is Constitutional.
Not that you have been able to show, given that you have not cited he 'foregoing power' that allows Congress to create an air force.

Citing the power to create an army and the power to create a navy - "not the same thing", according to you - do not create that power regarding the AF, in that the AF is also "not the same thing".
 
And you never once said to yourself "might they be wrong".
Great education you have there.

No, I never said that. Not because I failed to question some sense of rightness or wrongness to their argument, but because they were correct. Furthermore, they could prove that they were, which, unfortunately, is more than I can say for your argument. Your only recourse is personal attacks, specifically personal attacks on my education level, which is ironic because my 'poor education level' you keep harping on under the assumption that I am wrong is identical on this issue to those who are much more highly educated than yourself, and we both have the luxury of being right.

Let's look at the facts. You have failed to provide any discourse whatsoever from a Constitutional lawyer, professor, or justice to back up your case. You do not do so because you cannot do so - your position is incorrect. Since you are incapable of admitting you are incorrect, your only defense is to keep stringing this argument along without providing anything of substance, or something reputable to help your case.

On the other hand, I have provided you with links to a law professor who directly refutes your argument. In addition, there are court cases within that very same link that refutes your argument as well. There is even a cited tribunal (U.S. Air Force Board of Review in U.S. v. Naar) that disputes your argument directly, one i've reposted twice now. In addition, there have been no court cases whatsoever regarding your view, that the Air Force is unconstitutional, and why? Because anyone with a modicum of sense understands the Elastic Clause and why the Air Force is a Constitutional organization.

You will simply repeat your argument despite the fact you are incorrect here. While I admire your spirit, it's unwarranted on this issue because the Air Force is constitutional. Question it all you like; hell, you can even start a one-man 'ban the Air Force' movement, but the reality of the situation is that you are not a Constitutional lawyer, nor a professor, nor anyone with any great deal of expertise on the matter, and unfortunately for you, those who oppose you on this issue have plenty. You can repeat your belief over and over, but it will not change a thing. When you wake up tomorrow, the Air Force will still be constitutional. It will be so until Congress dictates otherwise, and all because of the Elastic Clause.
 
Last edited:
Hey Singularity and Goobieman,

Both of you are wrong I suggest you go back and read my last post on page 5. The USAF was formed out of the National Security Act of 1947 had nothing to do with the US Consitution, if you two took the time to go and read US Code 50 Section 15 then you will understand.
 
Hey Singularity and Goobieman,

Both of you are wrong I suggest you go back and read my last post on page 5. The USAF was formed out of the National Security Act of 1947 had nothing to do with the US Consitution, if you two took the time to go and read US Code 50 Section 15 then you will understand.

My argument is that the Air Force is Constitutional and why it's constitutional, not what specific national security act created it.

Goobieman's argument is that the Air Force is unconstitutional for his aforementioned reasons.
 
My argument is that the Air Force is Constitutional and why it's constitutional, not what specific national security act created it.

Goobieman's argument is that the Air Force is unconstitutional for his aforementioned reasons.

It doesn't matter what the argument is because both are mute since the NSA of 47 viods the discussion, have you read the NSA of 47 or US Code 50 Section 15 if not I suggest both of you read it and stop this stupid moronic argument.

As I said the US Constitution had nothing to do with the creation of the USAF/NSC/NSA/CIA Joint Cheif and Dept of Def.
 
It doesn't matter what the argument is because both are mute since the NSA of 47 viods the discussion, have you read the NSA of 47 or US Code 50 Section 15 if not I suggest both of you read it and stop this stupid moronic argument.

As I said the US Constitution had nothing to do with the creation of the USAF/NSC/NSA/CIA Joint Cheif and Dept of Def.

On the contrary, the argument is perfectly relevant. In case you haven't realized this yet, the Constitution trumps every law of the land, including the NSA of 47 or US Code 50 Section 15. If either of those were found to be in violation of the Constitution, it is they - not the Constitution - which would be changed.

The Constitution - specifically the Elastic Clause - allows for the creation of the Air Force. If it did not, there would be no NSA of 47 or US Code 50 section 15.
 
Last edited:
No, I never said that.
Obviously. Your intellecutal laziness shows.

You will simply repeat your argument despite the fact you are incorrect here.
Says he who admits he cannot cite the 'foregoing power' that allows the Elastic Clause to create the USAF.

Unit you DO cite that power, the Elastic Clause argument, necessarily, fails.
 
Last edited:
Obviously. Your intellecutal laziness shows.

Obviously. Why work at it when I can merely provide a link to the Constitution and a law professor disproving your argument?


Says he who admits he cannot cite the 'foregoing power' that allows the Elastic Clause to create the USAF.

Unit you DO cite that power, the Elastic Clause argument, necessarily, fails.

I only told you this for, oh, two pages now. In any case, guess what's still gonna be Constitutional when you wake up tomorrow? Yep, you got it, the Air Force.
 
Obviously. Why work at it when I can merely provide a link to the Constitution and a law professor disproving your argument?
All you're doing is citing someone's opinion. You havent taken the initiative to question that opinion.

I only told you this for, oh, two pages now.
No, no you haven't. You yourself admitted that you cannot cite it.
That said, there;s no way your 'elastic clause' argument can be sound.
 
All you're doing is citing someone's opinion. You havent taken the initiative to question that opinion.

That someone being a law professor who answers the question.


No, no you haven't. You yourself admitted that you cannot cite it.
That said, there;s no way your 'elastic clause' argument can be sound.

Again, you are disagreeing not only with my position, but anybody who studies the Constitution and is knowledgable about it. As I said, don't shoot the messenger. I understand you believe that the US Air Force is unconstitutional, but you're neither a lawyer, a justice, or anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about the document. The fact that you can only repeat the same old argument over and over after I showed you a link directly refuting this argument (from a law professor, nonetheless) tells me or anyone else reading this thread all we need to know. This debate is over, as you can neither cite a reputable source for your position nor is the Air Force challenged by anyone knowledgable in the highest laws of our country as being unconstitutional. Nor is it likely to ever be for the aforementioned reasons.

I'll let you have the last word.
 
The Constitution does not need to be amended whenever a military branch is being made to protect the citizens of the United States.

If the citizens of America didn't want it then it would've been protested in the first place.
 
that someone being a law professor who answers the question.




Again, you are disagreeing not only with my position, but anybody who studies the constitution and is knowledgable about it. As i said, don't shoot the messenger. I understand you believe that the us air force is unconstitutional, but you're neither a lawyer, a justice, or anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about the document. The fact that you can only repeat the same old argument over and over after i showed you a link directly refuting this argument (from a law professor, nonetheless) tells me or anyone else reading this thread all we need to know. This debate is over, as you can neither cite a reputable source for your position nor is the air force challenged by anyone knowledgable in the highest laws of our country as being unconstitutional. Nor is it likely to ever be for the aforementioned reasons.

I'll let you have the last word.
thank you!!!
 
That someone being a law professor who answers the question.
Fallacy: Appeal to authority.

Again, you are disagreeing not only with my position, but anybody who studies the Constitution and is knowledgable about it.
For the reasons states a zillion times.
The Elastic Clause argument necessarily fails because there is no 'foregoing power" to create the AF -- you yourself admit you cannot cite said power.
 
Back
Top Bottom