![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 9th, 2003 01:03 amThis could be a purely legal question... but hear me out.
The US Consitution, Article I, Section 8, says:
Quote:
Congress shall have the power...
Clause 12:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13:
To provide and maintain a Navy;
In addition, the Second Admendment to the Consitution says:
Quote:
Amendment II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Remembering that the US Government is in debt from last years, that there's no "Balanced Budget" admendment or law for the federal government (unlike state governments), and yet military pay is not sufficent to maintain a family of two adults and two kids, let alone just the spouse...
Remembering that the US Congress likes to give itself a raise every session, weither automatically or manually (and probably overriding any veto)...
...wouldn't it be a violation of the quoted entries of the Consitution to *underfund* the Military, especially in the terms of paying congressional members (Senators/Representatives) more than their needs? Since money needed for the military is not being given to them, soldiers are being inpeeded from a literal reading of the second admendment -- they are unable to "bear arms" or obtain weaponry.
The US Consitution, Article I, Section 8, says:
Quote:
Congress shall have the power...
Clause 12:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13:
To provide and maintain a Navy;
In addition, the Second Admendment to the Consitution says:
Quote:
Amendment II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Remembering that the US Government is in debt from last years, that there's no "Balanced Budget" admendment or law for the federal government (unlike state governments), and yet military pay is not sufficent to maintain a family of two adults and two kids, let alone just the spouse...
Remembering that the US Congress likes to give itself a raise every session, weither automatically or manually (and probably overriding any veto)...
...wouldn't it be a violation of the quoted entries of the Consitution to *underfund* the Military, especially in the terms of paying congressional members (Senators/Representatives) more than their needs? Since money needed for the military is not being given to them, soldiers are being inpeeded from a literal reading of the second admendment -- they are unable to "bear arms" or obtain weaponry.
