• 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

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Article 1 said:
The Congress shall have power
[...]
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;

Obviously, the Founding Fathers had no idea that airplanes would ever exist, so there is no mention of an Air Force in the Constitution, even though it mentions both an Army and a Navy.

Does this mean that keeping an Air Force without amending the Constitution to allow such is unconstitutional? When I learned about the Constitution in grade school, the Air Force was frequently cited as an "implied power" in the Constitution, since the Constitution makes rules for a military and since the Founders couldn't foresee the importance of airplanes. I'm especially interested in how strict Constitutionalists view this issue.
 
It could be so construed. The AF was at first part of the Army, and so no challenge to the Constitution.

It may have been much more correct of the government in the late 1940's to have amended the Constitution to create the Air Force.

On the other hand, a very loose interpretation of the term "army" might embrace almost any military organization.
 
It could be so construed. The AF was at first part of the Army, and so no challenge to the Constitution.

It may have been much more correct of the government in the late 1940's to have amended the Constitution to create the Air Force.

On the other hand, a very loose interpretation of the term "army" might embrace almost any military organization.
 
Does naval forces only apply to wet navy? So a dry navy, aka, space navy isn't Consitutional?

As for the 2 year rule, well, that's pretty much ignored. We even have house representatives press releasing 5 year military contracts they helped craft.

BOCCIERI ANNOUNCES 5-YEAR MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MILITARY CONTRACT FOR WILL-BURT COMPANY | Congressman John A. Boccieri, Representing the 16th District of Ohio

Lockheed Wins 10-Year Contract Worth up to $5B - ABC News

Going on a strict consitutionalist, what the founders were thinking, it should be. Whatever that is not explictly allowed in the COTUS is prohibted.
 
Obviously, the Founding Fathers had no idea that airplanes would ever exist, so there is no mention of an Air Force in the Constitution, even though it mentions both an Army and a Navy.

Does this mean that keeping an Air Force without amending the Constitution to allow such is unconstitutional? When I learned about the Constitution in grade school, the Air Force was frequently cited as an "implied power" in the Constitution, since the Constitution makes rules for a military and since the Founders couldn't foresee the importance of airplanes. I'm especially interested in how strict Constitutionalists view this issue.

Dunno, its a good question. I guess personally, I'd feel a little bit more comfortable if there was a Constitutional Amendment; but there are also some good arguments that "army and navy" could be seen as "whatever military forces are needed".

I'm not going to lose sleep over the Air Force... but we've already got oodles and scads of gov't agencies that are nowhere authorized by the Constitution. We'd be better off if we'd stuck to a strict literalist interpretation.
 
I think we all know the answer to this?
 
We sorta have this branch of our Government that interprets the Constitution for modernity.

There is much that the founding fathers could not foresee (Air Force, Internet, Mass Production.... Alaska) so we require the keepers of the Constitution to understand the intent with-which the founders wrote and apply that same model to situations.

Basically,

If the Air Force was unconstitutional it would be the job of the Justice system to say-so.

I don't think it is necessary to add it to the Constitution. something Constitutional does not warrant an amendment.
 
Obviously, the Founding Fathers had no idea that airplanes would ever exist, so there is no mention of an Air Force in the Constitution, even though it mentions both an Army and a Navy.

Does this mean that keeping an Air Force without amending the Constitution to allow such is unconstitutional? When I learned about the Constitution in grade school, the Air Force was frequently cited as an "implied power" in the Constitution, since the Constitution makes rules for a military and since the Founders couldn't foresee the importance of airplanes. I'm especially interested in how strict Constitutionalists view this issue.

The Air Force was part of the United States Army; therefore, it is perfectly legal.
 
Obviously, the Founding Fathers had no idea that airplanes would ever exist, so there is no mention of an Air Force in the Constitution, even though it mentions both an Army and a Navy.

Does this mean that keeping an Air Force without amending the Constitution to allow such is unconstitutional? When I learned about the Constitution in grade school, the Air Force was frequently cited as an "implied power" in the Constitution, since the Constitution makes rules for a military and since the Founders couldn't foresee the importance of airplanes. I'm especially interested in how strict Constitutionalists view this issue.

I'm 100% certain that if flight existed in their time that an air force would have been specifically mentioned; and the future space-force equivalent, also.
 
The US Air Force is Constitutional under the Elastic Clause (Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution).

I took a Constitutional Law class back when I was going for my second degree, and the Air Force was mentioned specifically.
 
The US Air Force is Constitutional under the Elastic Clause (Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution).

I took a Constitutional Law class back when I was going for my second degree, and the Air Force was mentioned specifically.

"Elastic Clause" aye? I hope you're not implying that spandex is a Constitutional right, 'cuz you and I are gona have some words....
 
It is constitutional since the President is commander and chief and he can organize the military as he sees fit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In America, every member of the military...Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and Air Force... is first and foremost a soldier of the United States.
 
The US Air Force is Constitutional under the Elastic Clause (Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution).
Under which of the "foregoing powers" was the USAF created?
 
I'm 100% certain that if flight existed in their time that an air force would have been specifically mentioned; and the future space-force equivalent, also.
Certainly.
HOWever... they were not.

As noted, the USAF was originally part of the US army; it was then seperated into its own branch. While the Constitution does allow for Congress to organize the US military as it sees fit, it does not allow for it to create a branch of service of status equal to the army and the navy.
 
As noted, the USAF was originally part of the US army; it was then seperated into its own branch. While the Constitution does allow for Congress to organize the US military as it sees fit, it does not allow for it to create a branch of service of status equal to the army and the navy.

Could it create a branch of service if it was labeled under Army or Navy at it's creation and simple re-organized later to it's own branch?
 
Could it create a branch of service if it was labeled under Army or Navy at it's creation and simple re-organized later to it's own branch?
The "simple re-organization" as you state it is exactly what happened.

The Army and Navy are Constitutionally described branches of the US military. To create another branch with the same standing as the Army and Navy, you'd have to have a similar Constitutional description.

Of course, the USAF could be re-absorbed back into the army, and there'd be no issue.
 
The "simple re-organization" as you state it is exactly what happened.

The Army and Navy are Constitutionally described branches of the US military. To create another branch with the same standing as the Army and Navy, you'd have to have a similar Constitutional description.

Of course, the USAF could be re-absorbed back into the army, and there'd be no issue.

So Congress can create a branch of service, as long as they initially create this new branch under the umbrella of a current branch and then re-organize it to it's own branch?

If so, is it OK for Congress to openly use such Constitutional loop holes?
 
Last edited:
So Congress can create a branch of service, as long as they initially create this new branch under the umbrella of a current branch and then re-organize it to it's own branch?
Um.... no.
I believe I said just the opposite?
:confused:
 
Um.... no.
I believe I said just the opposite?
:confused:
You actually answered indirectly, which is why I asked again.

What is taken into consideration when considering the equality of branches compared to the Army and Navy? Is it usage of the branch or numbers enlisted?

Enlisted numbers
Army - 456k
Navy- 276k
Air Force - 261k
Marines - 180k

Air Force is quite close to being bigger then the Navy in terms of size.
 
You actually answered indirectly, which is why I asked again.
Um... OK...

What is taken into consideration when considering the equality of branches compared to the Army and Navy? Is it usage of the branch or numbers enlisted?
The size of the servise is meaningless -- the 'equality' of the branches lies in terms of its organization under the department of defense. Each branch has its own department and secretary, etc; in those terms, each branch is equal.

That's why the USMC isnt a branch of the US military -- it is a service under the department of the navy.
 
Um... OK...


The size of the servise is meaningless -- the 'equality' of the branches lies in terms of its organization under the department of defense. Each branch has its own department and secretary, etc; in those terms, each branch is equal.

That's why the USMC isnt a branch of the US military -- it is a service under the department of the navy.

So a military group (such as the Air Force or Marines) could be bigger and more powerful then both the Army and Navy, just as long as it's placed accordingly in the official organizational chart?
 
So a military group (such as the Air Force or Marines) could be bigger and more powerful then both the Army and Navy, just as long as it's placed accordingly in the official organizational chart?
The issue is the constitutionality of the creation of the force itself.
If you create an organization as an equal to the the two branches of the military described by the Constitution without the specific power to do so explicitly stated in the Constitition, then your action is unconstitutional.
 
Back
Top Bottom