• 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
Under which of the "foregoing powers" was the USAF created?

As I said, the US Air Force was created by the Elastic Clause (Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution). Sometimes called the "Necessary and Proper Clause", Congress has the power to do whatever is "necessary and proper" to carry out its enumerated powers and, crucially, all others vested in it. For more details about the elastic clause, here's a link you may enjoy reading if Constitutional law is your thing: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I: Annotations pg. 44 of 58

Under this, the Air Force is a Constitutional organization.
 
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.

I get that but is it unconstitutional of the branch was originally part of the Army or Navy, is reorganized as a separate branch later and becomes equal or greater then the Army or Navy?

Technically is wasn't created as a organization equal to. It was re-organized become equal over time.
 
Why do I suspect we won't have the libertarian crowd calling for the disbanding or reorganization of the Air Force?
 
As I said, the US Air Force was created by the Elastic Clause (Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution). Sometimes called the "Necessary and Proper Clause", Congress has the power to do whatever is "necessary and proper" to carry out its enumerated powers....
Yes... and as I asked:

Which of the "foregoing" enumerated powers allow for the creation of the Air Force?

I use the term "foregoing" as that is the term used in the clause itself, though you clearly understand that the term refers to the enumerated powers listed elsewhere in Article I Section 8.

I find it rather amusing, you trying to lecture me on the Elastic Clause.
 
Last edited:
I get that but is it unconstitutional of the branch was originally part of the Army or Navy, is reorganized as a separate branch later and becomes equal or greater then the Army or Navy?

Technically is wasn't created as a organization equal to. It was re-organized become equal over time.
None of that matters -- you cannot create it as a branch of the military, equal to the army and navy, throught any means, w/o the Constitutionally mandated power to do so.
 
None of that matters -- you cannot create it as a branch of the military, equal to the army and navy, throught any means, w/o the Constitutionally mandated power to do so.

So what happens with the Air Force? It is just as large as the Navy now and is structurally an independent branch.
 
So what happens with the Air Force? It is just as large as the Navy now and is structurally an independent branch.
One of two things:
-Amend the Constitution
-Have it absorbed back into the Army (and/or Navy)
 
"Elastic Clause" aye? I hope you're not implying that spandex is a Constitutional right, 'cuz you and I are gona have some words....

spandex on fatties should be illegal....
 
Yes... and as I asked:

Which of the "foregoing" enumerated powers allow for the creation of the Air Force?

I use the term "foregoing" as that is the term used in the clause itself, though you clearly understand that the term refers to the enumerated powers listed elsewhere in Article I Section 8.

I find it rather amusing, you trying to lecture me on the Elastic Clause.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I said the Air Force is Constitutional because of the Elastic Clause. Why did I say this? Because I took a Constitutional Law class, and the professor - a Cornell Law graduate - quoted this from the textbook, which was written by - you guessed it - a bunch of lawyers well-versed in Constitutional law. My professor got paid for spending day in and day out studying the Constitution. The lawyers that wrote the book got paid for spending day in and day out studying the Constitution.

We discussed this very same issue in class. When test time rolled around, one of the questions was about the Air Force and what makes it Constitutional. I answered the Elastic Clause, and got a big check mark next to the answer with the words "correct" next to it. I passed the test with flying colors, and got an "A" in the class.

However, i'm not a Constitutional lawyer. I'm not even a lawyer. I'm just a dude who happened to take a Constitutional law class is all, and when this topic came up, I decided to post. But in response to your position against me, I decided to google this topic, just for poops and giggles. Funny thing, I found another law professor who teaches the same thing I learned. May I present Mr. Michael Froomkin, professor, University of Miami School of Law ( Discourse.net: On the fringes of the public sphere ).

Why the Air Force Is Not Unconstitutional


I forget sometimes just how diverse the readers of this blog are, although one need only to look at the readers' self-descriptions from those kind and generous enough to leave one to be reminded of this fact. So I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at how many people -- mostly non-lawyers -- asked, in one form or another, for me to not just post the questions but also the answers to my Constitutional Law Scavenger Hunt. (Lawyers, and especially law students, probably knew better than to expect a law professor to actually answer a question.)

Although this may risk turning my hobby into something that more closely resembles my job, I'm going to give it a shot for a while and see how it goes. My vague goal will be to do at least one a week, aimed primarily at the non-legal reader or first-year law student (I hope that specialists reading these will take the time to correct my errors, but I won't be presuming in this series of posts to try to tell you anything you don't already know). Along the way I hope also to address a few of the classic chestnuts I left out of my original list such as "who presides at the impeachment trial of a Vice President?".

I've created a new category for these posts to collect them in a handy form for those who come in late. Who know, maybe I'll even publish the lot on a dead tree some day.

So, by popular demand, here's the first one.

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 )

So, disagree? Fine. Feel free to go to law school, find a position somewhere, and start teaching otherwise. But in the meantime, i'm sure you'll pardon me if I take their word over yours.

Have a good one.
 
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I said the Air Force is Constitutional because of the Elastic Clause. Why did I say this? Because I took a Constitutional Law class, and the professor - a Cornell Law graduate - quoted this from the textbook, which was written by - you guessed it - a bunch of lawyers well-versed in Constitutional law. My professor got paid for spending day in and day out studying the Constitution. The lawyers that wrote the book got paid for spending day in and day out studying the Constitution.
Wow. I'm impressed.
News: So did I. That's why I asked you the question I asked you -- becaise in MY class, we were taught to think for ourselves, rather than simply swallow what was fed to us.
Answer the question:
Which of the "foregoing" enumerated powers allow for the creation of the Air Force?
 
Last edited:
I tend to think it is legal and constitutional. I think it should be disbanded anyway but that is another debate.
 
Wow. I'm impressed.
News: So did I. That's why I asked you the question I asked you -- becaise in MY class, we were taught to think for ourselves, rather than simply swallow what was fed to us.
Answer the question:
Which of the "foregoing" enumerated powers allow for the creation of the Air Force?

Couldn't tell ya. All I can tell you is that the Air Force is Constitutional under the Elastic clause. You know this, too, because you took a Constitutional law class as well. If you didn't learn that, perhaps an email to your professor would better answer your question. Or any Constitutional lawyer would do.
 
Couldn't tell ya
Then, if I were you, I'd question the information you just presented me.

See, if you went to a good school and/or had a good professor, you would have been taught to think critically, including doing things like asking questions like "where is -that-found in the Constitution"?. Otherwise, you're just taking someone else's word for it -- which isn't a very intelligent thing to do.

Y'ought to check into getting your tuition money back.
 
Then, if I were you, I'd question the information you just presented me.

See, if you went to a good school and/or had a good professor, you would have been taught to think critically, including doing things like asking questions like "where is -that-found in the Constitution"?. Otherwise, you're just taking someone else's word for it -- which isn't a very intelligent thing to do.

Y'ought to check into getting your tuition money back.

There's no need. I went to a great university, I was taught that the Air Force is Constitutional under the Elastic Clause, and this is correct. You were taught the same thing if you took a Constitutional law class; if you somehow missed this, as I said, an email to your professor will answer this for you. And they'll tell you the same thing I did, that the Air Force is Constitutional under the Elastic Clause.

If you want more details, I'm sure any Constitutional lawyer, professor, or justice can help you more than I. But in the end, you'll learn the same thing I did - The Air Force is Constitutional under the Elastic clause.

Happy learning!
 
Obviously not.
But hey -- be proud of your non-critical thinkning skills.

A simple "thank you, Singularity" would have sufficed, but you're welcome.

In any case, you now know that the Air Force is Constitutional, so enjoy!:2wave:
 
Last edited:
A simple "thank you, Singularity" would have sufficed, but you're welcome.
A thank-you for what?
Exposing your 2nd rate education?

Well, OK... thanks!
 
A thank-you for what?
Exposing your 2nd rate education?

Well, OK... thanks!

No problem. Fortunately for me and my "second rate education", I knew that the Air Force is Constitutional. And since that's correct, thank goodness for it!
:2wave:
 
No problem. Fortunately for me and my "second rate education", I knew that the Air Force is Constitutional.
No... bevcause your 2nd rate education tought you only to swallow what was fed to you, you do -not- know that - as evidenced by your response to my question.
 
No... bevcause your 2nd rate education tought you only to swallow what was fed to you, you do -not- know that - as evidenced by your response to my question.

Well, if you can provide a link from a credible source like I did to support your argument, I'd love to read it.
 
Well, if you can provide a link from a credible source like I did to support your argument, I'd love to read it.
The fact that you cannot answer my question provides all the support I need:
-You rest your premise on the elastic clause.
-To operate, the elastic clause requires a 'forementioned power'.
-You cannot cite any such 'forementioned power'.
Thus, the elastic clause cannot operate; your premise fails.
 
The fact that you cannot answer my question provides all the support I need:
-You rest your premise on the elastic clause.
-To operate, the elastic clause requires a 'forementioned power'.
-You cannot cite any such 'forementioned power'.
Thus, the elastic clause cannot operate; your premise fails.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm simply relaying the facts to you, that the Air Force is Constitutional. If you disagree, you should take that up with Constitutional lawyers, professors, and justices of the court. I see it the way they do.

However, one error you made is in saying that the elastic clause requires a 'forementioned power'. The elastic clause states that Congress can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", not that it requires a forementioned power to operate per se. If you disagree, I want you to show me exactly where the elastic clause specifically states that - your words - "To operate, the elastic clause requires a 'forementioned power'."

However, if you are insistent upon a forementioned power, then one has to look no further than the very same article to see "To raise and support Armies", which is a forementioned power. Since the Air Force can be interpreted as an 'army of the air', then there you have it.

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
 
First all of you are wrong on how and when the USAF became a seperated Service.

Time for a little History Lesson the USAF as we know it started out as the following.

Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps (1 August 1907 to 18 July 1914)
Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps (18 July 1914 to 20 May 1918)
Division of Military Aeronautics (20 May 1918 to 24 May 1918)
U.S. Army Air Service (24 May 1918 to 2 July 1926)
U.S. Army Air Corps (2 July 1926 to 20 June 1941)
U.S. Army Air Forces (20 June 1941 to 17 September 1947)

On July 26 1947 President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947. This was the act that set up not only the USAF but NSC/NSA and the CIA.

I suggest everyone to read US Code 50 Chapter 15,

US CODE: Title 50,CHAPTER 15—NATIONAL SECURITY
 
I see it the way they do.
Yes... which gets back to your failure to think critically.

However, one error you made is in saying that the elastic clause requires a 'forementioned power'. The elastic clause states that Congress can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", not that it requires a forementioned power to operate per se.
Sorry -- foreGOING power, not foreMENTIONED power.

The Elastic Clause requires a specific power allocated to Congress to be operable. As previosly noted, you cannot specify that related power, and so your Elastic Clause argument fails.

If the elastic clause did NOT require a specifc foregoing power to be operable, then there's be no need for ANY specific powers to be given to Congress. That there are numerouns spowers allocated to Congress nillifies this argument through the canon agains surplusage.

However, if you are insistent upon a forementioned power, then one has to look no further than the very same article to see "To raise and support Armies", which is a forementioned power. Since the Air Force can be interpreted as an 'army of the air', then there you have it.
Gee. That was original. :roll:
By your reasoning, specifying the power to create the navy was redundant, as a navy is just an 'army of the sea'.
Again, the canon against surplusage nullifies this argument.
 
Yes... which gets back to your failure to think critically.

Which also illustrates perfectly why i'm right on this issue. Since I agree with the constitutional lawyers, professors, and anyone who knows anything about the Constitution, I have the luxury of being correct. Since you obviously disagree, you have the misfortune of being wrong. Of course, don't take my word for it. Email any law professor or Constitutional lawyer in the country, then attempt to say that the Air Force is an unconstitutional organization. They'll correct your argument for you.


Sorry -- foreGOING power, not foreMENTIONED power.

Definition of foregoing: previously stated, written, or occurring; preceding: The foregoing paragraph presents the problem. foregoing definition | Dictionary.com

Definition of forementioned: Mentioned before; already cited; aforementioned. forementioned definition | Dictionary.com

Same thing.

The Elastic Clause requires a specific power allocated to Congress to be operable. As previosly noted, you cannot specify that related power, and so your Elastic Clause argument fails.

I just did - the power to raise armies.

If the elastic clause did NOT require a specifc foregoing power to be operable, then there's be no need for ANY specific powers to be given to Congress. That there are numerouns spowers allocated to Congress nillifies this argument through the canon agains surplusage.

Show me exactly where the Constitution says this.


Gee. That was original. :roll:
By your reasoning, specifying the power to create the navy was redundant, as a navy is just an 'army of the sea'.
Again, the canon against surplusage nullifies this argument.

Nope. The Constitution mentions the Navy specifically.
 
Back
Top Bottom