[bvw]

A better question is whether the Air Force falls under the Navy or Army Constituional clause. The Air Force was the Army Air Corps -- that's one clue, and another I say would be in that the Navy -- being possibly shipbound on world-cirlcing voyages of years, is not constrained by the two-year appropriation limit, whereas the Air Force in their modern ships of the air can traverse the globe in a day or less. That is, imo, the AF is a legitimate branch of the Constitution's "army".

[Looking for Diogenes]

To #47: A better question is whether the Air Force falls under the Navy or Army Constituional clause. The Air Force was the Army Air Corps -- that's one clue, and another I say would be in that the Navy -- being possibly shipbound on world-cirlcing voyages of years, is not constrained by the two-year appropriation limit, whereas the Air Force in their modern ships of the air can traverse the globe in a day or less. That is, imo, the AF is a legitimate branch of the Constitution's "army".

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14 gives Congress the power to:
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

I don't see how the Air Force can be construed to be a land force. I suppose plane do have to land, but no one would call them a land force because of that fact. Otherwise the navy could be called a land force because ships dock.

On the other hand, Clause 12 gives Congress this power:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

So that would mean that Congress can raise money for an Army Air Force (Clause 12), but cannot make any rules governing it (Clause 14).

Following strict construction makes for some strange legal situations!

To #48: No, not "what is right", rather what is the tradegy of overapplication of "stare decisis"!

Overapplication? Hmmm. I'm trying to think of how things would go if the Supreme Court were to suddenly decide that Social Security isn't constitutional after all.