All history teaches that an army under the unrestrained control of Executive power is a great and constant danger. against which constitutional government must ever be jealously guarded. The framers of theConstittionrealizedthisfact. Theywere familiar with the hisloryof England. where. after a prolonged and sanguinary struggle. a King was deposed becaUse he had endeavored to subvert the laws and liberties of the kingdom "by raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament." They had suffered in their own persons and property from the exercise of arbitrary power. and in our irmnortal Declaration of Independence had read a similar indictment against another King of Great Britiau for keeping "among us in time of peace standing armies without the consent of our Legislatures." In framing a Constitution they stripped the Chief Executive of the prerogatives possessed by the King of Great Britain "to make war and peace. to issue letters of marque and reprisal. to regulate weights and measures. to coin money. to erect offices. to naturalize allens." and ether important powers concerning internal and foreign relations. and placed them in the hands of Congress. But lest the Representatives elected by the people might. from corruption or apathy. grant supplies for an Army for an indefinite timd. they limited the power of Congress to make an appropriation of money for the Army to a period of two years. so that every House of Representatives would be required to vote supplies or the Army to disband. This feature of the Constitution is somewhat similar to the English law which provided. "That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace. unless it be with the consent of Parliament. is against law." I might occupy the time of the House for hours in reading from English history and law to show that the British army cannot be legally maintained without consent of Parliament.
Keywords matched
naturalize