It is pointless to argue with you when you are intellectually dishonest.
There are NO duties stated, specifically or otherwise, for the armed forces in the Constitution. None.
You are the one who maintains that there are NO implied powers.
If you were intellectually honest, you would argue that they have no powers or duties, because you maintain you can't imply such things into the Constitution.
Yet, you maintain that it is necessarily implied that they were established for defense, and you say there is an implied prohibition against their use in another country. That is despite the fact that any moron knows that armies are used for attacking and defending, and that such a self-prohibition by a country would have been unprecedented.
You are perfectly willing to imply bizarre things into the Constitution that match your beliefs, while adamantly denying that you are doing so.
I don't care if you have a warped view of the Constitution, but if you can't argue logically, then I'm not going to waste any more time.
This is the second time you've said this. And it's false. It is not implied. It is explicitly stated that the only use for the military by the president and Congress is in the event of national defense.