[moonhawk]

"Nothing in the Constitution prohibits standing armies."

(section 8)"The Congress shall have power......To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years;..."

[Demidog]

Isn't it funny? The 4 year contract for an enlisted man violates the constitution. The constitution is a completely disrespected document. People despise it. Perhaps because everytime they read it, they realize just how illegitimate most government actions are?

[Styria]

Doesn't that just mean that Congress would have to get together every two years to vote on a new appropriation of money for the same standing Army? So they can't just say that so much of the budget goes to the Army for the rest of time and then forget about it and not be involved in oversight?

[Dog Gone]

Right. A military appropriation bill cannot be for a period for more than two years. That's not a prohibition against a standing army. Are you suggesting that it is?