![handle is hein.crs/goveqay0001 and id is 1 raw text is: The Army Clause, Part 5: Relationship with
Principles of Federalism
July 22, 2024
This Legal Sidebar is the last installment in a five-part series that discusses the Constitution's Anny
Clause, which authorizes the federal government to raise and support armies while also allowing for
congressional control through the appropriations process. Because the Army Clause provides Congress
with an essential element of the United States' suite of war powers, understanding the Army Clause may
assist Congress in its legislative activities.
This Sidebar post provides analyzes the relationship between the Army Clause and constitutional
principles of federalism. Other Sidebars in this series discuss the clause's historical backdrop; drafting
and ratification history; relationship with approprations, conscription, and war materials; and role in
individual cases. Additional information on this and related topics is available at the Constitution
Annotated.
The Supreme Court has occasionally addressed disputes over how principles of federalism interact with
Congress's authority to raise and support armies. An early case on the issue arose in 1871 after the father
of an Army servicemember filed a habeas corpus petition with Wisconsin state court officials seeking the
release of his son, who had been accused of desertion and was being held by the Army. A Wisconsin court
ordered the son's release under the theory that he was a minor at the time of enlistment and joined the
Army without his father's consent, but the Supreme Court held that state officials lacked jurisdiction to
grant the request. The federal government's power under the Army Clause is plenary and exclusive, the
Supreme Court reasoned, and it would undermine federal primacy and the military's ability to function if
state courts could question the legality of military custody in habeas corpus proceedings.
In the Selective Draft Law Cases, the Supreme Court addressed a direct federalism-based challenge to
Congress's power to raise armies. A group of individuals convicted of failing to register for the draft
during World War I argued that under the Constitution as originally framed state citizenship was
primary[,] and a nationwide, all-male draft would invert this constitutional structure by causing the
federal government to dominate the states. The Supreme Court concluded that this view did not comport
with the drafting history, intent, or text of the Constitution. The United States' inability to raise an army
without relying on the states was one of the recognized necessities for adopting the Constitution, the
Court reasoned, and the text and intent of the Constitution give complete control over the power to raise
armies to Congress while purposely denying it to the states.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11208
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/goveqay0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most