Article 1:
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;Let's think about what you've provided.
Raise and
support Armies...to raise an Army there can't be an existing, standing Army else there would be no need to "raise it" in the first place. "The call would go out" to the individual States for their militia, which was supposed to be kept trained by each individual State for situations when a
federal Army was needed.
As to the support aspect, naturally, any Army that is "raised" needs to be "supported", thus there should be no need to examplify that portion. What it did, basically was say that the fedgov would "support"/ie "pay", provide for their basic needs, such as food, clothing, transport, etc. the raised troops.
Ah yes,
provide and maintain a Navy. Provide, as in the funds are gathered to build the ships and pay the men and maintain as in keep it in effect, not having it subject to a necessity of having it be raised. With the American economic stability so necessarily congruent with shipping at that time this was understandable. Damned pirates.
And then "the Rules" (note: not laws), which the fedgov has become most exceptional at doing with great efficiency.
Well, you can't have piracy amongst your Navy and you have to have some kind of chain of command, for example, and there is a necessary prohibition against rape and pillage for any risen Army, for example. Perfectly understandable. The Navy's Rules would be "applicable at all times" since it was supposed to be existent at all times. The Army's Rules would have to be promulgated when the call went forth to raise the Army. Those "Rules" could be drug out of the lower desk drawer, from the last time they were used, dusted off and updated, if necessary. (search UCMJ)
Any clearer? The existance and constant maintenance of our standing Armies today is not what the FF wanted or authorized.
The existance and constant maintenance of our standing Armies today is not what the FF wanted or authorized. That is apparent both from reading the Constitution itself and from reading the minutes of the convention and the Federal Papers. However it seems like most so-called strict constructionists are also pro-military. The strong, implicit ban on standing armies is a fact gets left out when the discussion turns to violations of the Constitution.