[supercat]

We've been kinda waiting for him to retire to the fruitcake farm where he can polish the buckles on his shoes and wax eloquent about how the Constitution doesn't authorize an Air Force.

Is there any reason why the Constitution shouldn't be amended to authorize one?

I would expect pretty strongly that many Air Force construction projects have appropriations longer than two years. That would be constitutional for the Navy, but not for any other branch of the armed services.

How hard should it have been, before authorizing multi-year appropriations for airplanes and equipment, to pass a Constitutional Amendment specifically saying:

1. Congress shall have the power to create a branch of the military called the Air Force.
2. The Air Force, like the Navy, shall be exempt from the two-year restriction on appropriations.
3. The Air Force shall be forbidden from taking action against citizens of the U.S. except when such citizens have been declared by Congress to be in a state of open insurection.

Would there have been any difficulty passing such an amendment after World War II (the two-year appropriations issue wouldn't matter until the development of larger projects that came along later)? Is there any reason that shouldn't have been done, instead of simply ignoring the lack of authorization?

[Dog Gone]

I think it's stupid. The reason the Constitution doesn't authorize an Air Force is because only birds flew then. It doesn't authorize a space agency, either.

What Neil Armstrong did was unconstitutional, dammit, in the Ron Paul world.

JFK's challenge to put a man on the moon before the end of the 60's would have met a serious challenge, and undoubtedly folks of Ron Paul's mindset would have fought the constitutional amendment all the way.

I don't think we needed a constitutional amendment to give Charles Schulz a certificate and shiny piece of metal, either.