A Most Unconstitutional Military

At 19 years old I, like many other young men, raised my right hand and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This was 1999, I was still too young to understand the full gravity of the oath I swore and thanks to a government education, the document which I swore to defend. This was prior to 9/11, so the full weight had yet to come down. I enlisted in the National Guard as a Military Police Officer for the typical 6-year initial term. I deployed to Iraq in 2003 for nearly 18 months, served in the Guard until 2009 spending those last two years at Fort Bragg due to previous Iraq-related injuries where I saw how the Army dealt with the "Wounded Warriors".

After leaving in 2009 I looked back at my time in service as a true waste. I was politically homeless and lost in a lot of personal ways. I failed to understand the constant wars. I was a Republican that voted for Obama in 2008 because McCain was a Warhawk, but nothing changed! I swore an oath to something that meant nothing to my leaders??? The more I studied the Constitution, the angrier I became at what had become. Being a fan of Orwell kept me from falling into the likely Fed traps of "Proud Boys" or "Oath Keepers", or any of these organizations.

Fast forward to 2022. I found a home in the Libertarian Party, as neither of the two major parties supported that oath I swore to at 19 years old. I knew that my time in the National Guard was a perversion of the Constitutional intent of the militia. I decided to do two things: Put on a uniform again in a manner that was Constitutionally consistent and to help bring down this system. I now wear the same uniform I left with in 2009 now as an officer in a State Guard (A legitimate state militia), and I started the Tennessee chapter of Defend the Guard to get the legislation passed in my state to force the US Congress to do its job for the first time since 1941.

There’s Only One Legitimate Active Duty Branch

Forget all federal legislation since the Constitution, most heinously since 1916. The US military is largely unconstitutionally structured, and blatantly runs counter to a Republic. It is the military arm of the Empire controlled by oligarchs. The only consistent active-duty branch of the military is the US Navy, the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) explicitly instructs Congress "To provide and maintain a Navy". Naval power was to be wielded by the Federal government, commanded by the President. The United States just broke free from the largest naval empire in the world and knew that the primary defense of the republic would rely the most on the Navy.

In 2022 the same is true, the US Navy can defend the United States from every other navy in the world combined. Forget offensive operations, I mean defense. Our entire nuclear arsenal can be in submarines, negating ICBM sites. 2-3 aircraft carriers, destroyers, missile frigates, minesweepers, corvettes, and other support ships can roam within a thousand miles of each coast. The Navy still would have coastal air bases, shipyards, land-based support systems all funded by Congress. The Marine Corps and the Coast Guard would both exist as subordinate units of the US Navy. All of this would be perfectly constitutional.

What Shouldn’t Exist?

The US Space Force, as fun as it was watching the media coverage on this. The Space Force shouldn’t exist. The USSF exists as a sub branch of the US Air Force, much like the Marine Corps is of the Navy. Why shouldn’t the Space Force exist? Because the Air Force should not exist either. The Air Force started as the US Army Air Corps. Any operations historically or currently by the US Air or Space Force, during peacetime, should have been part of the US Navy. The Navy and Marine Corps already have fixed and rotary winged aircraft.

The US Army, in peacetime, should not exist as a combat force, if even at all. The Constitution instructs Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years;" that is an interesting difference in wording between "Armies" and "a Navy". The Navy is clearly a permanent fixture, the two-year limitation on an army is clearly linked with Congress’s sole duty to declare war. The Army is raised when Congress deems it necessary to send it to invade another nation, likely after an attack or as tensions are rising and prior to a declaration of war.

The National Guard should not exist either, not as it is structured now. National Guard units are considered dual use. They are state militia and federal reserves and can be sent overseas as part of the US Army/US Air Force respectively. The National Defense Act of 1916 and subsequent NDAs warped the designations of these soldiers to a dual enlistment. However, the Constitution is clear on the use of the state militias. Militias can be used by state governors however they see fit per their state powers. The Constitution states that only Congress can call the militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" Nowhere does it state that militiamen can be called from their states and sent overseas as part of an Army.

The Constitutional Land Forces of the United States

Congress is required to organize, discipline, and arm the militias. Discipline meaning doctrine not punishment, Congress is also required to make rules for all land and naval forces, see the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The States are empowered to appoint the officers of their militias and to administer the training dictated by Congress. This is smart as to ensure that soldiers are trained and equipped to the same standards across the country. Militias would look like the current National Guard units, except that instead of the "US Army" name tape and flag, you would see State flag patches and tapes.

The militias can also have a similar air component to be used for air defense much the same way as NORAD is used. Congress can outfit each state with a requisite number of aircraft and equipment and dictate the training requirements. The training could include ‘live fire’ patrols within the state’s airspace staggered to ensure constant coverage. All of this would be constitutional. But these forces would be defensive and could only be called by Congress and for those limited circumstances.

What If We Need to Go to War?

Congress has the power to create an agency just to manage war materials needed in case of a war. Arsenals and voluntary training programs could easily be managed to have a fighting force ready to call upon. And in the case of war, experienced militia officers could be requested for the Army. They can resign their state commission and accept the Army commission to lead a foreign force if needed. Even a holding branch of the US Army could be constitutionally sound, i.e. the "US Army Training and Logistics Command" could hold the arms, tanks, equipment needed.

This is a constitutionally sound military, focused on defense. But that is not the military we have right now. In 1947, after the end of World War 2, the United States firmly stood on top of the world and viewed itself as the Empire. It is a true Orwellian fallacy, a Department of "Defense" focused solely on offensive operations in foreign lands since its inception. It’s a long road back to where we should be, so passing Defend the Guard legislation in the state’s is a small compromise step.

DuWayne Moore is the Director of Defend the Guard Tennessee. Contact him on email and Twitter.