Related Citations
-
Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Text, the Whole Text, and Nothing but the Text, So Help Me God: Un-Writing Amar’s Unwritten Constitution, 81 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1385 (2014).
Arguing that the Founders did not provide that the Army Clauses should be construed narrowly.
-
Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography (2012).
Explaining Founding suspicion of standing armies resulting in the two-year appropriation limitation and noting that this concern did not extend to the Navy.
-
Earl F. Martin, America’s Anti-Standing Army Tradition and the Separate Community Doctrine, 76 Miss. L.J. 135 (2006).
Explaining that the Founders embraced civilian control over the military and appreciated the need to find the balance between military efficiency and respecting individual rights.
-
Robert J. Delahunty, Structuralism and the War Powers: The Army, Navy and Militia Clauses, 19 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1021 (2003).
Arguing that the Framers imposed the two-year appropriations limitation to prevent Congress from committing to long-term military action.
-
Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 Yale L.J. 1131 (1991).
Arguing that the federal draft cannot be justified by the original meaning of the Army Clause.
-
Stephanie A. Levin, The Deference That is Due: Rethinking the Jurisprudence of Judicial Deference to the Military, 35 Vill. L. Rev. 1009 (1990).
Describing the historical development of the English and early American opposition to standing armies.
-
Michael J. Malbin, Conscription, the Constitution, and the Framers: An Historical Analysis, 40 Fordham L. Rev. 805 (1972).
Arguing that the Framers intended that the power to conscript be embraced by the power to raise armies.