Thwe world is flat you ignorant fucker.

Where in the constitution does it says that corporations should have all the rights of an american citizen?

Rights and more,but only after they earn them.

__________________
I respect your right to have your own opinion,but I do not necessarily respect your opinion.

I'll tell you what speakes volumes about a standing army, the federalist papers and the debates, letters and opinions of the framers of the constitution.

It was determined that standing armies in the absence of a declared war pose a significant threat to the liberties of the citizen. It's hard to imagine now (if all you know is a smattering of American history), but this was (and in many parts of the world still is) of grave concern to a group of true patriots and freedom fighters/givers in the late 18th century. People who had learned far more world history (and lived it) than any two people on these boards combined.

It's the same reason military is not allowed to intervene in civilian affairs. You can't possibly understand the ramifications of the constitution unless you learn why it was written. It was designed to protect the free people of these United States from the feudalism and tyranny that has run rampant in nearly every government in the history of the world. Historically, a large standing army with nothing to do tends to find itself turned against it's countrymen by the order of their elites.

A large standing army in times of peace runs CONTRARY TO COMMON SENSE in every historical aspect. Exactly who are you afraid of? We are a heavily armed citizenry, with resources and reasonably well educated. Look at what the Arab countries have done with what little they have to work with... do you really think any foreign army is itching to invade the US? LMAO

Now, for those of you who love to take things to the extreme, I'm not saying there should be no standing military during times of peace, but a greatly reduced one. Keep your intel gathering, keep the air force at decent numbers.

Now, for those of you who love to take things to the extreme, I'm not saying there should be no standing military during times of peace, but a greatly reduced one

No standing army needs no standing army. You can't say that a standing army during peace threatens the liberties of people and then say, "but it is OK if we have a smaller one." Is there a magic number and if we have a standing army below that number our liberties are safe but when above they aren't?????

The world has changed, the Framers also owned slaves and didnt' see a problem with that. They didn't allow women to vote. They didn't allow some men to vote.

A standing army in the 21st century is necessary and while the size may be subjective, it does need to be large enough to respond in a timely manner against multiple threats.

If, as you say ALL the founding fathers were against a "standing Army" during peace time, they should have said so in the Constitution, not in their personal letters. That way it would have had some meaning. But instead they made numerous references to a peace time army, as if it were a forgone conclusion that one did exist, and would continue to exist, even after the British were defeated. You must remember that our Constitution was written during peace time, and we still had a standing army, not just a militia.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Which states, among other things...

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;


As far as all the founding fathers being against a standing army...not quite the case...

Standing Armies And Armed Citizens: An Historical Analysis of The Second Amendment

A defender of standing armies, Washington wrote to the Continental Congress in September of 1776 as follows:

To place any dependence upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows....

The Jealousies of a standing Army, and the Evils to be apprehended from one, are remote; and, in my judgment, situated and circumstanced as we are, not at all to be dreaded; but the consequence of wanting one, according to my Ideas, formed from the present view of things, is certain, and inevitable Ruin; for if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter.

But it was just George Wahington. What would he know.

The link above is an interesting read. They even come down on the side of the "guns kill people, the criminals pulling the trigger are just innocent bystanders" crowd. That should give them some instant credibility.

As it always has. However, in the absence of the military-industrial complex, they had other ways of achieving this through the creation of militias and, if needed, a draft. Respond away.

Again, I never said there should be no army. If you look closely at what I wrote, I said "LARGE STANDING ARMY". I'm starting to understand how it is that you get so easily confused.

There was a tremendous amount of debate over the standing army issue. The constitution does provide for a standing (floating??) navy but is mute on the issue of an army. It was assumed at the time the federal government's sole role was the protection of the individual states from foreign invasion. The state militias would provide for the defense of the state. Elbridge Gerry, then governor of Mass declared in a debate "A standing army is like a standing member, while it insures domestic tranquility it offers a temptation for foreign adventure"

I think the standing army issue can be hinged on "providing for the common defense"

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

I agree completely. The constitution does provide for a navy. Today's Navy is far more than merely sailing ships tooting about the ocean. With aircraft carriers, submarines, the Marine Corp and our regular fleet we don't need a standing army to begin the defense of the country. We really are not in a position to be attacked by a large armed force from a foreign country (Mexicans want jobs, not war). I don't know about keeping a large army in foreign countries. That may not be a bad idea in the long run but I have to agree with Smart ass on this one, the Constitution does not provide for a standing army and many of the founding fathers absolutely were opposed to one.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy