[otness_e]

Okay, you said we should respect others sovereignty. However, we purchased Louisiana from the French colonies, which would technically infringe and thus not respect another’s sovereignty. Same goes for our creating a navy when the Founding Fathers specifically did not want a standing military, just relying on militias. Not that I’m complaining about those things, but there are times where those kinds of arguments for isolationism don’t work especially if we go by what our founding fathers wanted.

[logi_cal869]

There is a great chasm between what you describe as “isolationism” & interference in the affairs of others. If you assert moral authority of the US to have prevented Lenin’s rise to power, I challenge you to demonstrate where the founders believed that a government operating like Britain at the time would have been good for America.

I’m not going to address the rest, save for this reference (your assertion on the LP is ridiculous).

http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/constitutional-basis-defense

[Svartalfiar]

Same goes for our creating a navy when the Founding Fathers specifically did not want a standing military, just relying on militias.

A Navy is not a standing army. If you read the details of the Constitution, Congress is given:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

So yes, a Navy is a specific thing the FedGov is supposed to have. The difference being that a Navy is a huge amount of investment and maintenance, whereas an Army's only real stuff was cannon. Everything else could be easily supplied by the populace when called up. Armies back then didn't have the amount of stuff that we do today. The Army today would relate more to the "Navy" from the Constitution in terms of how the Founding Fathers saw it.