The Marine Corps is considered a separate branch of the military. They have their own representative on the Joint Chiefs, their budget is no longer a part of the Navy budget, they are in all respects independent. Something not sanctioned by the Constitution.
I don't suppose the framers would have foresaw the need for an Air force, but then those that would have amended the Constitution to make it explicit wouldn't have been necessarily wrong to do so as you imply.
Of course not. My point has been to refute those who claim that only explicit powers are granted the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the government. The framers of the Constitution were men of insight. They allowed for the fact that the Constitution had to be broad enough to allow for unforseen future circumstances, which is why the Air Force and Marines can be allowed for under the instructions to provide for the common defense included in the Preamble. Yet sothron fanatics, who see nothing wrong with this, have a cow over other implicit powers that they don't happen to agree with.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps answers to the Chief of Naval Operations, and both of them to SECNAV.
You err.
A strict constitutionalist would agree, but cite the amendment process as proof, not the existence of extraconstitutional bodies of government.
which is why the Air Force and Marines can be allowed for under the instructions to provide for the common defense
Agreed, but it would be tough to argue with someone who wanted to amend the constitution to explicitly allow for the formation of the Air Force, given that the Army and Navy are explicitly called for in the constitution. Had the document ended with a provision for defense, I suppose that would leave the arbitraryness of it's composition at the whim of congress.
While the Marine Corps may have their own representative on the joint chiefs, and a separate budget from the US Navy, it is my understanding that they are still accountable to the Navy brass and subject to the rules and regulations of the US Navy. They are not a separate body in many ways, and most of the infrastructure and "overhead" (if you will) is shared. Dad is the one who would really know, I'm just regurgitating second-hand. I'll talk to him tomorrow and see what he has to say, this kind of stuff is pretty interesting to me.
I do have some difficulty with the notion that government powers are arbitrarily broad, even in certain cases such as national defense. I have long tried to grasp the understanding of government that allows for anything goes with 51%, save review of the court, which can arbitrarily stretch the constitution to fit when political winds deem it necessary. I ran into this before on a WOD thread, where someone insisted that amendment 19 was passed not becuase the government did not already have the power to enact prohibition, but because an amendment would be more difficult to overturn than a statute. If that is the case, then we're dealing with majority rule and our republic has much to fear.