About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (July 22, 2024)

handle is hein.crs/goveqba0001 and id is 1 raw text is: The Army Clause, Part 3: Appropriations, Conscription, and War Materials July 22, 2024 This Legal Sidebar is the third in a five-part series that discusses the Constitution's Anny Clause, which allows for the federal government to raise and support armies while also allowing for congressional control through the appropniations 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 discusses interpretations of the Army Clause in connection with appropniations, conscription, and war materials. Other Sidebars in this series discuss the Clause's historical backdrop; drafting and ratification history; role in individual rights cases; and connection with principles of federalism. Additional information on this and related topics is available at the Constitution Annotated. Time Limits on Army Appropriations Although the Army Clause provides that no appropriation of money to raise and support armies shall be for a longer term than two years[, the executive branch has interpreted this restriction to allow the Army to make investments in military equipment and supplies using appropriations available for more than two years. In 1904, the executive branch addressed whether it would violate the two-year appropriations restriction by contracting to pay patent royalties in exchange for construction of guns and other equipment if the royalty payment might continue beyond two years. The Solicitor General opined that the contract would be lawful because the Army Clause's appropriations restriction is confined to appropriations to raise and support armies in the strict sense of the word 'support,' and does not extend to appropriations for the various means which an army may use in military operations, or which are deemed necessary for common defense. The Solicitor General reasoned that expenditures to arm, equip, and render effective armies that Congress has previously raised are not subject to the two-year restniction. In 1948, the Attorney General relied on the 1904 opinion in concluding that Congress could appropriate funds for aircraft and aeronautical equipment procurement beyond two years. Congressional committees have also advanced the view that the Army Clause's appropniation restniction does not apply to defense articles or equipment. The Supreme Court has not addressed the constitutionality of this interpretation of the appropriations restriction, although it has addressed the scope of Congress's power under the Army Clause in other contexts. Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB11206 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most