Friday, April 13, 2007

More on the Federalist

I'll bet Gonzo could make as good a case for this supporting his argument as I could for mine.

In the Founders’ view, the “blessings of liberty” were threatened by “those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain.” The Federalist No. 45, p. 238 (J. Madison). No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King:

“It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy: while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which, by the constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 357.

1 comment:

Gonzo said...

I don't think it supports or refutes either of our arguments. Those were different times with different concerns.

See my earlier update on my post? I came to the same conclusions that you've posted on the aversion to an established military.

What really strikes me is that it's clear that from the 1860's to today we've done exactly what they thought would be a bad thing. They wanted such checks and balances on Federal power that a State or States could say "fuck it" and raise a militia to start all over. And the one time we've tried that...well...look what happened. Not that the CSA was a good thing, it wasn't, but they followed the course foreseen in the Papers.

To clarify, Garrett, I really don't have a strong position in this so I'm not sure we have an argument. To me it's like Bible study for a Methodist and a Baptist...same book, slightly different interpretations but no clear conviction of what the deal is.