“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”

 The US Consrtitution is broken. To be honest having a written constitution is meaningless if no one understands what it means, or follows it.

I've pointed out that the US Constitution doesn't mention self-defence, but it does mention the common defence and shows great concern for the military establishment.

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

•     declare war
•     grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
•     raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
•     provide and maintain a Navy
•     make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
•     provide for calling forth the Militia
•     make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
•     provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
•     govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

•     Appoint the Officers of the Militia; and
•     train and equip the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

    "The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

The US engaged in acts of war without congressional approval during the Vietnam war, which led to the introduction of the War Powers Resolution which is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. 

The failure of getting congressional approval means this is an illegal war. 

The War Powers Resoultion provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".  

The attack on Iran shows that the commander in chief should not be the president of the United States.

One of the reasons I put this under Second Amendment was that part of the constitution was supposed to guarantee that institution would form the defence of the nation. As I have said before, the idea was to have a military where training and  administration would be handled by full time, professional soldiers, while the bulk of the forces would be part timers.

This system was what Switzerland had and is perfect for a peaceful and neutral nation since it discourages actions like those taken by Trump. As Jesse Ventura pointed out, make the people who make the decisions go to war. But under a militia, everyone is subject to military duty during a conflict, which should discourage belligerent actions.

And the founders were discussing the military when they discussed the Second Amendment, which is something which can be confirmed if you look up "founding fathers on standing armies". I keep mentioning the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 since provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The founders would be appalled with the current state of the Union. 

WIll Iran be Trump's downfall?

 Thus is the security brief from the BBC: Iran: What should the US fear?

Will Trump's ego lead to a strategic error? Why hasn't the Congress used the War Powers Act to stop this insanity? 

 This shows that the United States needs to seriously reorganise and reassess because it has forgotten some of the lessons of its history.

The United States of America: 1790-2026

An arrogant, self-obsessed, incompetent, land speculator was the first president of the United States. And another one will be its final president. This is because the lessons of la Conquête were not learned and the mistakes kept coming. This video shows that strategy is far more important in war than firepower. 

Watch these videos for an eye opener.  I think they are AI, but they may be from Chinese sources. That's a shocker if true.

 The US is not prepared to fight a war for many reasons, one of which was its support for Israel.

Trump's arrogance and inability to deal with reality are harming the US.

No Trump derangement syndrome here, just the observation of people outside the US.

That's part of the problem with a country that holds a "World's Series" in which it plays with itself. 

Yes, bad pun intended.

Seriously, I don't get my news from US sources. And foreign newspapers often have an English edition, which I am providing the headline from Le Monde in English so that people in the US can see how Trump is trashing the country on the world stage.

Even in the 51st (51st-54th states?), the United Kingdom, which is fairly US friendly, he's taking a lot of heat. And Canada is on the outs with its neighbour to the south.

People in the US should realise that a lot is wrong with their country and it needs a serious overhaul of its system. This is especially true for its system of elections which is supposed to keep a clown like Trump from becoming president.

 

The Tory response to the State of the Union Address.

272 years ago, in 1754, another real estate speculator with an overblown sense of ego started a world war at Jumonville Glen. The bill for that war was presented to the people of the 13 Colonies and they revolted. Despite their not being able to properly unify to fight that war under the Albany Plan of Union. 26 years later, in 1776, they thought they were able to rule themselves, and started yet another war which bankrupted the nation and threw it into havoc.

They hastily cobbled together a Constitution in the hope that they could unify, but less than 100 years later, the US had another civil war. And now it looks as if the US may end up in another civil war under the leadership of another real estate billionaire and reality television star with an overblown ego.  

The system is broken and only works for a few.

Trump's belief in the US being a world power may cause its downfall.

 What exactly is the state of readiness of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf?

The United States needs to address its internal problems rather than be the world's bully. One has to learn its real history, not the myth. Wars cost money and are disruptive.

Just curious about the issue of standing armies

 So, I did a search. And even though I am against AI, I thought I would see what sort of response I received to the following query: "standing armies in british political thought". Here are the results.

Standing armies have been a contentious issue in British political thought, particularly due to fears of military despotism and the need for civilian oversight. The 1689 Bill of Rights established that no standing army could be maintained without Parliament's consent, reflecting a long-standing opposition to permanent military forces in peacetime.

Going further produced the following

Overview of Standing Armies in British Political Thought
The concept of standing armies has been a significant topic in British political thought, particularly concerning their role in governance and civil liberties. Historically, there has been a strong resistance to maintaining a permanent military force during peacetime.

Historical Context
Pre-17th Century
Before the mid-17th century, England relied on local militias, noble levies, and mercenaries for defense.
The absence of a standing army was a common practice, reflecting a preference for citizen-based military forces.

The English Civil War
The creation of the New Model Army by Oliver Cromwell during the English Civil War marked a shift towards a professional military.
This army demonstrated effectiveness but also raised concerns about centralized military power.

Key Developments
The Restoration and the Bill of Rights
After the Restoration in 1660, fears of military despotism influenced political thought.
The 1689 Bill of Rights established that no standing army could exist without Parliament's consent, reinforcing civilian oversight.

Eighteenth Century Perspectives
Opposition to standing armies persisted, with figures like James Ralph arguing that they were unconstitutional and advocating for reliance on militias.
Adam Smith later noted that standing armies were indicative of a modernizing society, necessary for effective warfare. 

Conclusion
The debate over standing armies in British political thought reflects a tension between the need for military preparedness and the desire to protect civil liberties. This historical context continues to influence contemporary discussions about military power and governance.

Explore More
What are the Historical arguments against standing armies in British politics
Historical arguments against standing armies in British politics often centered on the fear of centralized military power leading to tyranny and the erosion of civil liberties. Critics, such as John Trenchard, argued that standing armies were inconsistent with free government and posed a threat to constitutional order, advocating instead for reliance on militias for national defense.

How did the 1689 Bill of Rights influence Military oversight in Britain

The 1689 Bill of Rights established that a standing army could not be maintained during peacetime without the consent of Parliament, ensuring civilian oversight of military forces. This principle limited the monarch's power to control the military and reinforced the role of Parliament in military matters, shaping the modern British Army's reliance on parliamentary approval for its existence.

What are the Modern implications of standing armies on British civil liberties

Modern implications of standing armies on British civil liberties include concerns about government intrusion and the potential for military power to threaten individual freedoms. The historical distrust of standing armies has shaped contemporary views on the need for civilian oversight and the protection of personal privacy from military influence.

 My observation on this:

It's a nice summary, which is something AI can do pretty well. Although, it is sort of garbage in, garbage out depending on the material out there. I tried getting summaries on self-defence in common law and gun rights in common law, but those two topics are polluted with pro-gun propaganda, which can pretty much be discounted as inaccurate for a myriad of reasons. The basic one is that a good portion of the material is taken out of context. I don't have the time to cite check it all, but I have given examples in other posts. 

Probably the best example of how gun rights has misconstrued and misunderstands the primary sources is shown in the quote I gave from Heller in my last post.

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. 

Do I need to say any more to show how aberrant the concept of gun rights happens to be?

This is a really good article that shows the issue was standing armies if you will actually sit down and read the primary source material. Trust me, it doesn't take too long for it to become obvious unless you are incapable of understanding English:

https://allthingsliberty.com/2018/05/standing-armies-the-anti-federalists-and-federalists-constitutional-debate/

 

Scalia's fallacious reasoning

I could write a very long book to show that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is nonsense, but that's superfluous since Scalia does it himself with this piece of gibberish which shows he has no idea of what he is talking about. In fact, I would say a statement this ignorant shows he was unqualified for the position he held: 

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. 

Unfortunately for Scalia, this precursor to the Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

And like all the previous US supreme court decisions on the Second Amendment, it contradicts the Heller and subsequent decisions. Those two paragraphs show that the Heller decision is bumpf in an elegant manner. 

The issue of standing armies was a very hot topic in the 17th and 18th centuries, where as personal arms were not.

Fortunately, Donald Trump is proving another point I have been making about Heller, and that is that its invalidating of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), demonstrates that "judicial review" is unconstitutional and can pretty much be ignored.

I made a quip about Scalia writing a decision which permits the persecution of catholics. He didn't do that since he never lived long enough to write that decision.