Today I read Ned Rice’s article in NRO and had a few good laughs. Near the end he said this:
Sorry, but I'm the old-fashioned sort who still believes that if it's not specifically cited in the actual words of the Constitution as something the federal government can do, then they're not permitted to do it, period.
That triggered a weird thought, so I sent him this email:
Ned,
I enjoy a good laugh, and got a few from your NRO article ("Pull the Tube").
I do have some food for thought regarding strict constructionism: The Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12, 13, and 14) empower Congress to fund the Army and the Navy. Period.
Hmmm. Does that mean we must disband the Air Force, because it's unconstitutional?
This is only half tongue-in-cheek. I’m definitely NOT against having an Air Force (quite the opposite); I’m just trying to figure out whether or not I’m a strict constructionist. I searched the Constitution, including the Amendments, twice; nowhere can I find “air force.”
Send me an email if you can straighten this out for me. Specifically, here's the question: If I’m in favor of keeping our Air Force, is it still possible for me to be a strict constructionist? If so, why?
In the meantime, here’s a quote I found in my eBook version of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations when I searched on the word “objectivity.” It describes what happens to me a lot, not just when I’m thinking about the Constitution versus the Air Force.
Subjectivity and objectivity commit a series of assaults on each other during a human life out of which the first one suffers the worse beating.
--Andre Breton
