"Our Constitution did not authorize permanent foreign entanglements." Worried about the Constitution, are we? Well, it doesn’t authorize standing armies either - yet here we are.
jleyank•1mo ago
It also required a well-regulated militia to handle all those guns. That's how it was going to do without that standing army.
taylodl•1mo ago
The Constitution doesn’t require a well-regulated militia - it simply says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia is mentioned as a reason, not a condition.
jleyank•1mo ago
The militia is mentioned first, but I’m not an English major who is able to parse old sentences. The militia is “necessary” so they need to know where the, erm, candidates are located and what they pack.
halJordan•1mo ago
It clearly says a well regulated militaries is necessary for the security of a free state. You can dither on whether the Constitution establishes a secure state or a free one, but the syllogism is there
jleyank•1mo ago
Go for it. This allows the remaining NATO members to proceed with their own defence and more importantly, their own hardware and guidelines. And, to be honest, the US prefers Russia to NATO which makes it inconvenient.
Not going to be all that good for US defence contractors, but they'll figure something out.
taylodl•1mo ago
jleyank•1mo ago
taylodl•1mo ago
jleyank•1mo ago
halJordan•1mo ago