How does the US Constitution relate to the US Army Officer Corps - Essay Example

How does the US Constitution relate to the US Army Officer Corps Introduction The US Constitution is the supreme law of the country, providing framework for organizing its government. It defines three the three major government arms namely the executive under the leadership of the President, the judiciary headed by the Supreme Court and the legislature consisting of a bicameral Congress. Other than defining the organization of these arms, the constitution clearly outlines the powers exercisable by each branch of government. The Constitution also reserves some rights for each individual state and therefore establishes the US federal system of government. The US Constitution was enacted in 1787 through a convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but later underwent ratifications in every state, and further underwent amendment twenty times. The US Army is a military, whose primary misson is providing the required forces and capabilities to boost national security and defense strategies. The Army is the largest and oldest branch of the armed forces and among the seven uniformed operations. The modern Army traces its roots back to the Continental Army formed in 1775 to help in meeting the demands of the American Revolutionary War, before the United States was established. Most US Army units can be divided into various components including the following units: the Corps, Division, and Brigade, regiment, Battalion, Company, Platoon, Squad, Section, squad and team. The Corps is a large administrative and administrative grouping of troops within the armed forces having a common function like Artillery or Signals The relationship Various views with regard to the source of war power were expressed in the early years of the US constitution making and continue to seek supremacy even now. A theory was to the effect that war power comprises the particular powers granted by Article 1, Section 8. Later in 1795, the theory's argument was advanced further that the National government's war power is attributed to sovereignty and hence independent of the confirmatory grants of the written constitution. Later, Chief Justice Marshall took a different view that the authority to wage war is implied from that to declare it (Kohn et al, 1988). According to the US Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-chief of the military although Congress is the one empowered to declare war by Article One, Section Eight, and not the President. However, Congress has always authorized Presidents to deploy troops in the event that a war has not been declared explicitly. Since the Second World War, major military actions have mainly been US military operations or UN police actions that are considered justifiable legally due to decisions like Authorisation for Use of Force, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and numerous other UN Resolutions. This was also the case for the Korean War that was only considered a war by an Act of Congress. The The US Constitution does not apply to the military personnel exactly the same way it does to civilians. Even though the military is not excluded from the rights contained in the Bill of rights of the constitution, Article One, Section Eight grants Congress authority to make government rules as well as regulate the land and naval forces. Practically, most of the constitutional rights of the civilians are also accorded to the military, even though some differences are introduced to suit the situation in the military. With regard to right of warning and right of counsel the military has broader protection than those in the constitution. Military appellate courts are used for interpreting military law and ensure it is consistent with the constitution as much as possible (Kohn et al, 1988). The Second Amendment of the US Constitution created a well regulated militia in order to boost security of the Free State as well as the right for people to bear and keep arms. This amendment was enacted in an environment pervaded by emerging republican ideology as well as with the help of various suggestions from numerous sources, mainly from the various states' bill of rights together with other amendments and suggested by state conventions that carried out a ratification of the constitution. Just before the Second Amendment, American and English writers were of the view that government and society greatly depend on possession of arms and that these arms are essential for individuals to protect themselves and from dangerous fellow citizens and corrupt authorities. Moreover these arms would help the citizens protect themselves against rulers, and would distinguish between free men and slaves (Bolt et al, 2005). The two key rights; the need for a militia comprising ordinary citizens and the individual possession of arms, were later merged. The universal militia concept originated from England, dating back to the 12th century, where there existed a requirement that subjects possess arms and also serve military duty (Bolt et al, 2005). The US Constitution has been termed as a law for people and rulers, equally in peace and in war and covers and protects all classes of men, under all circumstances and at all times. The 1798 Alien Enemy Act gave power to the president to deport any alien or allow for his residence within the US at any place the president designates. The US courts insist that all government branches should keep within the powers assigned to it by the constitution with regard to war, hence bringing out the issue of acceptable delegation. It is however common for the President to be delegated more powers by the Congress during a war than at other times. But his has generally been ignored by the courts and, court cases discussing such issues are very few, if any. When the principle of delegation carried more weight than it usually does in the recent past, two theories were developed. The first theory acknowledged the shared war power between the Federal government and the legislature through the Congress. It went further to state that by the legislature authorizing the President to exercise war power, it does not amount to delegating its power its legislative power although the constitution insists that such power is a legislative one in Congress. Second, it is of the suggestion that the legislature's power of delegation during war time faces limitations in other situations and the presence of a state war favors the validity of the delegation. Conclusion The US President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, which includes the army officer Corps. However, the US Constitution vests power to declare a state of war in the legislature, through Congress. At some moment, Congress may authorize the president to deploy troops, seen by many as delegating the constitutional power of the legislature. The US Constitution does not really cover the military personnel such as the Army Officer Corps. However, the military enjoys rights contained in the US Constitution's bill of rights. The military and the Army Officer Corps in particular, also have their own set of rules they follow, which are in tandem with the US Constitution, since no law in the United States supersedes the Constitution. There should be more cohesion between the US Constitution and the military for it to carry out its mandate effectively. References Bolt, P et al (2005) American Defence Policy, JHU Press Kohn, R et al (1988) The Constitution and the US Army, US Army Military History Institute Read More