Think about the significance of the idea of no standing army. If the President has no money and no army to fight a war, his dependence on Congress for foreign policy adventures is complete (according to the text of the Constitution). Regulate milita Note that militia were about defending the people; Was understood in Republican theory as the bastion of protection against a tyrannical gov’t, and to respond in case of invasion while Congress was raising an army. There were federalism issues about how would be in control of militates. The result: compromise. President is the commander of the militias, but officers are state. But the power to call them out was in Congress. Power to make rules for governance over land of military. it looks broad, but DG doesn’t think it actually is It was about articles of war. every military force had to have its own internal rules These were generally embodied in something in the English tradition were in the articles of war. Idea was to borrow the British articles of war and apply them to the US. Today the Uniform Code of Military Justice was just the codification post-WWII of the Articles of War. These are the internal rules of the military. e.g. Court martial procedure; rank; privilege; punishment, etc. It’s not about interaction with the enemy. Power to regulate foreign commerce We typically think about this among the states. But it’s also with Indians and foreign states; Framers didn’t think you could regulate foreign commerce effectively unless you could regulate interstate commerce. This foreign commerce power was essential at the time. Related to core idea that US would be free port for the whole world! Idea that we would have no tarrifs. Neutral power which is the free port for trade, and the model treaty was designed to bring that into effect. Power to define and punish offences against law of nations
Think about the significance of the idea of no standing army. If the President has no money and no army to fight a war, his dependence on Congress for foreign policy adventures is complete (according to the text of the Constitution). Regulate milita Note that militia were about defending the people; Was understood in Republican theory as the bastion of protection against a tyrannical gov’t, and to respond in case of invasion while Congress was raising an army. There were federalism issues about how would be in control of militates. The result: compromise. President is the commander of the militias, but officers are state. But the power to call them out was in Congress. Power to make rules for governance over land of military. it looks broad, but DG doesn’t think it actually is It was about articles of war. every military force had to have its own internal rules These were generally embodied in something in the English tradition were in the articles of war. Idea was to borrow the British articles of war and apply them to the US. Today the Uniform Code of Military Justice was just the codification post-WWII of the Articles of War. These are the internal rules of the military. e.g. Court martial procedure; rank; privilege; punishment, etc. It’s not about interaction with the enemy. Power to regulate foreign commerce We typically think about this among the states. But it’s also with Indians and foreign states; Framers didn’t think you could regulate foreign commerce effectively unless you could regulate interstate commerce. This foreign commerce power was essential at the time. Related to core idea that US would be free port for the whole world! Idea that we would have no tarrifs. Neutral power which is the free port for trade, and the model treaty was designed to bring that into effect. Power to define and punish offences against law of nations
Con_Law_of_War_and_FA_Golove_Spring_2011.docx