The Air Force is unconstitutional!

[joecool65]

There is nothing in the Constitutional which states the United States shall have an Air Force. So, the Air Force should be immediately disbanded. I read the Constitution and there is nothing about an Air Force, hence it is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides for and Army and Navy, but no Air Force. If it is not in the Constitution, then the government cannot do it. The federal government has been operating an illegal branch of the military since 1947. All of Air Force's football victories should be forfeited and awarded to the teams they have play through the years since that Academy should have never existed in the first place. Their Commander-in-Chief trophies should be given to either Army or Navy, the only two Constitutionally-proper service academies. Feel free to add your own "It's not literally in the Constitution so the government can't do it" wingnut-type idiocy here.

[TheKentuckian]

1. Ron Paul, is that you?

[joecool65]

3. Read it a third time, still no Air Force

[Mugsy]

2. Love it!

I knew what you were going to say simply from reading the subject line! :)

[stray cat]

4. Its part of my militia and my rights to bear arms.

[joecool65]

6. The words AIR FORCE are not in the Constitution

So, it is unconstitutional. I am on my way to Colorado right now to protest.

[panader0]

5. The Constitution does call for providing for the "public option" though

Actually it calls for providing for the "public welfare". which, as an earlier post about DK pointed out, is health care.

[kctim]

14. Promote, not provide

[Statistical]

7. Article I Section 8. (see also Laird v, Tatum & US v. Naar for case law)

[joecool65]

9. Ummm, no

The words AIR FORCE are not in the Consitution. So, the Air Force is unconstitutional. It something is not in the Constitution, it is unconstitutional. Have you not paid attention to the well-informed citizenry at town hall meetings as of late?

[Statistical]

21. The airforce is part of "armies" as stated in Article 1.

Case law confirms that.

Is it your contention that if the govt called the Air force the "Air Army" it would be legal?

Article I simply states "armies" it doesn't say how those "armies" are to be organized or what they will be called.

The US could rename the US ARMY into the "rainbow brigade" and it wouldn't change the Constitutionality of it.

Your false arguments do more harm then good because they are so weak and can be easily deconstructed.

[sofa king]

22. That was always my favorite part.

Particularly this part:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Which is the part that effectively guarantees the sovereignty of our nation's 550+ tribes. There's something that's explicitly in the Constitution which Republicans desperately don't want to believe.

And not far below it is the line that should have Dick Cheney changing out his Depends more than usual:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

The Hague, Congress. You have to turn him over to The Hague.

[Lagomorph]

8. Well now that you mention it....

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn't address the people on TV, either...

:donut:

[Democracyinkind]

15. Well guess what neither Washington nor Lincoln are mentioned in the constitution so they were...

unconstitutional presidents anyway.

[Lagomorph]

23. We need a...

Blackwater B-52 photoshop.

[Romulox]

10. It's obvious we're not in the presence of a Constitutional scholar. I'll put my notebook away

(And I understand that you were trying to highlight the absurdity of the point you lampoon. But in doing so, you do not betray any in depth knowledge of the subject matter.)

[joecool65]

11. Umm, yeah, have you heard of parody?

"Health care" is not literally in the Constitution. "Air Force" is not literally in the Constitution. Maybe you have not been paying attention to things as of late.

[Romulox]

13. Have you heard of reading comprehension?

From the post directly above yours: "(And I understand that you were trying to highlight the absurdity of the point you lampoon. But in doing so, you do not betray any in depth knowledge of the subject matter.)"

[LostInAnomie]

12. I've been saying that for years.

"Strict Constructionists" and "Originalists" should be against the Air Force because it's not in the Constitution and you can't argue that the Founders had flying machines in mind.

[Romulox]

20. It's a huge leap to get from there to unlimited power for the Federal Government, however.

Just because "Army" can be construed to include "air force", it does not follow that all assertions of power by the Federal government are Constitutional. The OP isn't really on point with that specific argument.

That said, "strict constructionism" is logically untenable.

[Zen Democrat]

16. OMG -- Alert the 10thers at ONCE! The Air Force must GO if it's not in the Constitution! tee-hee

[treestar]

17. There is nothing about a federal highway system in there, either

We should have privately owned toll roads.

It also says that only Congress can declare war. Where were the wingnuts to protest the action in Viet Nam?

[NoPasaran]

18. Flying machines aren't mentioned in the Bible

So not only is the Air Force unconstitutional, it's unholy as well.

[kctim]

19. Weak argument

Ever hear of the Army Air Force?

[gaspee]

24. Wow

There are a lot of dense people on this thread.