[Dog Gone]

I'm not confused at all. Your refusal to point to where the branches of government were authorized to use the army or navy for ANYTHING, including self-defense is understandable, because it doesn't exist.

You want to mix the duties of the Militia into the mix because its duties are spelled out, but that's either confusion on your part or deliberate obfuscation. Either way, it's not accurate.

The bottom line is that the Constitution authorizes the creation of the armed forces but does not spell out their duties, or any limitation on them. Can you admit that?

You are implying both a duty AND a limitation on them that simply is not there, while in the same breath you are arguing that it's impermissible to make such implications. It's simply amazing to watch.

[Demidog]

I'm not confused at all. Your refusal to point to where the branches of government were authorized to use the army or navy for ANYTHING, including self-defense is understandable, because it doesn't exist.

Untrue. It's right there in the passages I quoted. It is you who have acknowledged that no other powers are implied or stated. I think you're finally getting it.