I find it interesting that they wouldn't be subject to this jurisdiction.
We were never meant to have a standing military like this, so they are not explicitly one of our branches of government. They can use a somewhat weak argument of an extension of the executive... But the executive is still subject to the checks of other branches
I find it interesting that they wouldn't be subject to this jurisdiction.
We were never meant to have a standing military like this, so they are not explicitly one of our branches of government. They can use a somewhat weak argument of an extension of the executive... But the executive is still subject to the checks of other branches
"We were never meant to have a standing military like this..."
Well - not a standing army. But a standing Navy was certainly authorized in the Constitution.
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"