|
Edited on Sat Sep-22-07 08:40 PM by Didereaux
short answer there isn't.... but I suspect you knew that already. The problem arises with private 'armies' ONLY when the federal government employes them in a capacity that is traditionally a military one. In THAT instance the private 'army' is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as the Constitution allows for ONLY such armies as it defines and gives authority over. The so-called unregulated militia notwithstanding.
There is a very real probability that George Bush as Commander in Chief by authorizing the use of a private 'army' in combat is in serioous violation of the Constitution. The framers were very careful in their wording as regards military matters. For good reason they knew the dangers that would be posed if a President or other high official maintained a private army.
One last thing, the fact that the Executive Branch IS maintaining a private army under the auspices of its office, is the fact that federal revenues are paying these people AND the private armies are NOT answerable to Congress, which has sole control over such expenditures.
We have several extremely critical breaches of our Constitution ongoing at present, most by the Executive Branch, but also from Congress itself for failing to provide its Constitutionally MANDATED responsibilities for oversight.
Did that help? If not, I suggest a long day or two be set aside for a visit to a really top legal libray, preferable one with a well stocked Constitutional Law section.
|