So much for your civics education. Or rather the lack of it....
And yet, I'm not the one getting basic terms wrong. lol
Oh, and where does the Constitution state that "the entire government - not just the military - has to be funded every two years"? Don't be shy. Show us your expertise.
Another fine example of someone who has never bothered to read the US Constitution, and I serious doubt you could comprehend it if you did.
lol
I've read it, I've studied constitutional law, and the Federalist Papers, and the Constitutional Convention notes, and multiple histories, etc etc.
No, it didn't, and I never said anything about armies being exclusively foreign mercenaries.
You said, and I quote: "The founding fathers had absolutely no objections to the US having a entirely home-grown permanent military. They merely had objections to hiring foreign troops."
That is flat-out wrong. They objected to permanent armies. Anyone with even a basic understanding of American history should know that. And yet, you do not.
The overwhelming majority of the troops that constituted a "standing army" in England and other nations was comprised of foreign mercenaries, but not all of them.
Incorrect.
Mercenaries were used at various times throughout Europe's history, and there are some examples (notably Italy in the 15th century) where mercenaries were heavily used. However, it is
ludicrous to suggest that was the case all throughout Europe. How would that even work? Did England hire German troops to fight France, and then France hired Italians to fight the English, while the Germans hired English troops to fight the Russians? lol
It is also hilarious that you know there were 30,000 Hessians fighting in the US -- and somehow failed to mention that there were over 55,000 Red Coats. Or that in 1778, the entire British Army comprised of 121,000 men, of whom only 24,000 were foreigners.
And of course, there is the aforementioned convention notes, which I'm guessing you've never read. There are multiple objections to a standing army, and at no point is it because of the presence of foreign troops. There is also Federalist No. 46, in which Madison writes:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
Madison wasn't worried about Hessians. He wanted to make sure that any federal standing army would be too weak to defeat state militias.
Or, we have Henry Knox's letter to George Washington in 1790. You, uh, do know who Knox is, right...?
Whoever seriously and Candidly estimates the power of discipline and the tendency of military habits, will be Constrained to Confess, that whatever may be the efficacy of a standing army in war, it cannot in peace be considered as friendly to the rights of human nature.
Knox wasn't worried about
condottieri. There was no mention of mercenaries. He was concerned that a standing army could suppress the public.
If they rejected the idea of having permanent domestic army, then why did Congress reinstate the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps after the US Constitution was ratified?
lol
Again: The Continental Army was disbanded after the Treaty of Paris. That's just a fact. Look it up.
Again: Not everyone was worried about standing armies (at least, small ones), e.g. Washington and Hamilton believed that a standing army would be necessary. Even so, there was enough resistance to a standing army that troop sizes were kept very small. It took decades, and multiple military engagements, for most Americans to begin to accept a large, powerful standing military.
Again: The irony of you proclaiming superior knowledge, while making mistakes about basic facts, is incredibly rich.
It is often the right-wing that objects to the idea of a "Living Constitution," and insist that we should interpret its provisions exactly the same as when it was ratified -- even though a) they fail to realize how they impose their own interpretations on the document in the process, b) they frequently ignore their own failures to abide by their own originalist injunctions, and c) fail to recognize the substantial disputes between the framers and ratifiers, as well as how many of the important figures of the time wanted it to have some latitude.
