Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: This could be why

  1. #1
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default This could be why

    Here is another passage from the Federalist Papers describing the need for the government to support a military.

    "The principal purposes to be answered by union are these -- the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.

    The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.

    This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal; the means ought to be proportioned to the end; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected, ought to possess the means by which it is to be attained.

    Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the formation, direction, or support of the NATIONAL FORCES."

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #23

  2. #2
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: This could be why

    Didn't Hamilton get shot by my buddy Burr?

    PS Ugly you need to pick another Favorite team

  3. #3

    Default Re: This could be why

    The money quotes...

    These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.


    ...and...

    This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: This could be why

    I think this passage definitely lets us see that defense spending has no boundary because at any time we could need the protection of our military and if they aren't equipped or it is under manned we are screwed.

  5. #5

    Default Re: This could be why

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    I think this passage definitely lets us see that defense spending has no boundary because at any time we could need the protection of our military and if they aren't equipped or it is under manned we are screwed.
    As we discoved in 1941. It took us two years to finally get the "Arsenal of Democracy" up to full speed. How many lives did it cost us to be unprepared?

  6. #6
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: This could be why

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    I think this passage definitely lets us see that defense spending has no boundary because at any time we could need the protection of our military and if they aren't equipped or it is under manned we are screwed.
    Huh? It says nothing about boundaries on spending. It does argue for the power of the federal government to raise an army.

    Elsewhere, in the constitution, it discusses who is charged with spending (Congress). So they can spend as much as they like, or as little as they like on defense.
    Last edited by matclone; 05-22-2008 at 11:11 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •