The third amendment bans standing armies as well.

"One of our first complaints, under the former government, was the quartering of troops among us. This was one of the principal reasons for dissolving the connection with Great Britain. Here we may have troops in time of peace. They may be billeted in any manner — to tyrannize, oppress, and crush us."

Patrick Henry.

Prescient.

The 2nd amendment was all about preventing standing armies as well, but nevermind.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

What part of this third amendment prohibits a standing army? Last I checked, soldiers aren't quartered in private citizens homes or even on private land. We have government barracks on government land. You, sir, are either an idiot or a bad troll cause your reference was so easily checked and demonstrably wrong.

And the second amenment bansnit without congressional approval. Putin, you are such a stupid fuck when it comes to interpetting the clear language of the bill of rights.

The point of the two years qualifier was to make sure raised armies were temporary and not standing armies. Indeed the C in C is only C in C during wartime.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, ****when called into the actual
Service of the United States***"

"We have government barracks on government land"

I doubt the founders anticipated the US government would be a giant landowner when constructing that amendment. The housing of soldiers all over US soil and among the US population is against the spirit of what the founders were writing.

Then why did the founders write in that a standing army was permissibl in peace time.with congressional approval?

You channeling the spirits of the founders now? If so, how does that fit in with your atheism?

Because practically every single founder wrote scathing criticisms of standing armies that would be considered unpatriotic & communistic if written in today's culture of kissing the ass of the military. It was one of the paramount concerns in the whole debate surrounding the ratification.

"The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

James Madison, June 26 1787.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

Thomas Jefferson: “I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Then why did the founders write in that a standing army was permissibl in peace time.with congressional approval?"

What passage are you talking about?

Second Amendment. Read it. It clearly establishes that a standing army in time of peace is fine with approval. If the founders never wanted a standing army in peacetime, why provide an out?

What on earth are you talking about?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where is there anything about standing armies in peace time with approval?

My bad. That was a state constitution regarding a standing army aka militia.

Delaware's constitution has that clause in it.

no such thing as a sanity clause

So just to be clear, the person calling us a "stupid fuck" "bad troll" and an "idiot" can't tell the difference between the US Constitution and the Delaware state constitution, nor does he have any idea of what the 2nd amendment says.

Glad we cleared that up.

Actually, tantris claimes the standing army was prohibited. I did a search on his quote and found the Delaware constitutiom with the completed phrase. Considering I'm in bed sick and in and out of sleep.today, I think my confusion is a matter of fevered delirium. But what is his excuse or yours for.claiming.the constitution.prohibits a standing army? I already cpuntered the Third Amendment. Nothing in the second mentions an army one way or the other.

And I stand br the stupid fuck comment based on your interpretation that somehow an army base is a private residence.

"But what is his excuse or yours for.claiming.the constitution.prohibits a standing army?"

Appropriations are limited to two years in duration.

As for the 3rd amendment, what is it the colonists were objecting to? The paying for and provision of soldiers during times of peace. The Declaration of Independence objects to standing armies in times of peace. " He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures."

Look up the Quartering Act of 1765. Nothing in the act authorized soldiers to be quartered in private homes, but rather authorized the use of unoccupied buildings such as barns, outhouses, etc, for the quartering of troops. What was being objected to was having colonial assemblies pay for the housing and provision of troops in times of peace. It was an objection to the existence of a standing army.

It objected to the standing armies "without the consent of the legislatures". Once again you ignore a little part of thr objection. Consent of the legislatures exist. Apportionment is not for mor than two.years are budgets are not for more than two years. I really am wanting to see something that convinces me it is unconstitutiona, but so far it doesn't even go against the non-binding Declaration of Independence.l

"Nothing in the second mentions an army one way or the other."

The whole reasoning behind the 2nd amendment was to prevent the existence of a standing army, which is why it uses the language of 'bearing arms' and 'militia'. Look at the convention debates. Most state constitutions when putting into place a similar amendment had added language about standing armies. For example, Vermont:

"Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

Also, Pennsylvania:

"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Still not a prohibition. States can only prohibit what happens in their boundaries. But I notice that suddenly the second amendment seems.in your favor - that is until the NRA says they want to have their arms. Which is it? Right to near arms in case the army turns on the citizenry or disarm.the people. You can't have both.

"Apportionment is not for mor than two.years are budgets are not for more than two years."

But the majority of military procurement bills are for terms longer than two years.

The NRA doesn't know the 2nd amendment from toilet paper. I'm merely pointing out what the 2nd amendment is for. As we have long had standing armies and have never abided by these amendments, both the 2nd & 3rd amendments are irrelevant. Quaint relics of a bygone age.

I am stealing that first sentence for future reference, Putin.

"Then don't complain about Obama not doing enough."

The flaw in all-or-nothing thinking is evident there again, Putin--SOME gridlock is OK, stonewalling any bill on party lines or vowing to sit on the ball, as it were, for four years until the next Presidential election is too much (what's more, while I back him, I'd argue part of the reason Obama hasn't done as much is because his fist two years he had a far milder approach and wasn't as forceful as he is now...which is fine, learning the ropes and all, I'm just saying, it's not all due to gridlock, and much as I like him, the President would be the first to admit he's not blameless and didn't make some mistakes in his first couple years."

"Listen to yourself. If we had 3 or 4 parties it'd be that much harder to get a working majority. The only reason our system works at all is because it only has two parties. Multi-party presidential systems are recipes for disaster."

Listen to yourself. The reason we have gridlock right now is due to partisan politics splitting right down the line EQUALLY between TWO powerful parties...if there were 3, 4, or more, chances are said parties wouldn't be as powerful and, thus, would be forced to work together in coalition governments, rather than simply stonewall every bill for four years until they gain the Presidency.

We barely have a two-party system, we have a two-party system that fights to be a one-party system...and while I suppose that's right up your alley, the rest of us would prefer to steer clear of Stalinist horrors and such strong control of a state by one party.

Not to mention the Founders didn't want anything LIKE a one-party, two-party, or even any party system at all, so the more parties and the less powerful they are, the better.

"Then you don't really believe in merit. The people elect a party to run the government. What do they care which individual leads that party?"

...I'd think they'd care a great deal which particular person was given the nuclear launch codes??? O.o

Really, you don't have a leg to stand on there, asking how or why people would care about the particular person who leads the state and, again, can order the pushing of the fateful button, as it were.

"Yes, I know free healthcare, anti-imperialism, and women's rights is "unAmerican", but that doesn't negate the fact that the institutional set up is based on the United States."

Despotism, redistribution, and imprisoning political opponents is un-American...or I'd like to think it is...

Putin if we didn't have a standing army we would not be the world power that we are and in times of war we would not have the experience. Do you think that highly trained armies just pop up? They take time and practice to build and without a standing army we would be easily defeated by an experienced army.

Texastough, I agree completely. My point was to demonstrate how irrelevant the constitution is. We should drop the pretense that our constitution remains relevant and convene a new constitutional convention redrafting one for the modern era.

^I'll agree that we need either law of the land rule or else a newly constituted, erm, constitution, the one we have IS out of date...

But good luck ever convening a Constitutional Convention to get it done.

maybe but if we do that we can't guarantee that we will have the same rights and freedoms that we do now. i personally would not want to risk it. As it is now we are interpret it in modern terms so it isn't really that out of date