Convention of States: Good or Bad?

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2017, 01:11 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: I don't read it as there isn't supposed to be a standing army. The way I read it is that the appropriations bill can't last long than 2 years. You would just have to pass a new one once that one expires.

When you look at that, in conjunction with the lack of a limit on naval appropriations, and the writings of the framers, the intent becomes clear. It was stated in the writings of several framers that they saw a standing army as a threat to the republic. They had seen the ground forces of Britain used to oppress the people, and they did not want the same to occur, here. They saw a standing army as a tool of tyranny.

Now, the interpretation you have is what has been used to justify a standing army for pretty much our entire history, but it denies the intent. The ambiguous wording has led to that corruption.