Balloon Juice
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy there is an interesting series of posts on what one might call the Problem of the Air Force. The problem, being one only for those espousing a so-called originalist view of the Constitution, is this: The document confers on the federal government (Congress in particular) the powers "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide and maintain a Navy." The Constitution, however, says nothing about Congress' power to create an independent Air Force. As such a force could hardly have been envisioned by the framers -- let alone intended to be encompassed by the terms Armies and Navy -- originalists must concede that such power simply does not exist. In sum, the U.S. Air Force is unconstitutional.
As I said, an interesting argument. Fortunately, it is just plain wrong. Contrary to what one might initially suspect, aircraft did exist during the time in which the framers toiled:
The first recorded manned balloon flight was made in a hot air balloon built by the Montgolfier brothers on November 21, 1783.
So too did the knowledge, however inadvertently acquired, that such craft could be used to distinct military advantage:
The first aircraft disaster occurred in May 1785 when the town of Tullamore, Co. Offaly Ireland was seriously damaged when the crash of a balloon resulted in a fire that burned down about 100 houses giving the town the unusual distinction of being home to the world's first aviation disaster.
It seems odd, then, that the framers would have deprived the republic of the ability to defend itself from the air. And, of course, they did not. A close reading of the constitution reveals the manifestly intentional establishment of a federal Hot Air Force. See Article I, section 1. And being thus descended, the modern Air Force remains a perfectly constitutional branch of service. (With all due apologies to John Cole and Allahpundit).
