[odawg]

“It’s your call whether that counts as “regular” or not.”

Not mine; the Army calls itself that.

[Political Junkie Too]

What will the army call itself if Congress withdraws funding for two years to punish it?

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

One more point...

This post is a deflection of the original point, which is the question of whether the Constitution forbids a standing army.

You should contrast the army with the next clause, "To provide and maintain a Navy;"

Note that there is no similar biannual funding for the Navy; the Navy was a "standing" Navy.

Put in context with the passages from The Federalist that I posted above, it's because the Framers didn't fear the use of a Navy by a tyrant to attack the People -- they feared a standing army. The Navy's purpose was to defend the country against invaders (from across the Atlantic Ocean); the militia's purpose was to defend the several states against an army coopted by a federal tyrant.

The Navy was continuously funded; the army had to be reapproved every two years.

-PJ