Let's not let this happen. Let's not have a standing military. It is expensive, and it is too big a temptation for our Executive to use it against people the way we had seen in so many other places. That second stanza or that second phrase is what Madison said during debate at the Constitutional Convention: "The means of defense against foreign danger"--that is the army--have always been "the instruments of tyranny at home." That is using the army against your own population. So that is why they were so worried. Over time, because of the security demands of the country and a variety of various wars, we did pursue a standing Army and an Air Force, and we expanded and so forth. We got the Marines, got the Navy, and we have the militia, the National Guard. I think they would say: You have been pretty lucky so far that the understanding was so deeply rooted that these could not be used against your own population except in extraordinary situations. And one of those extraordinary situations would be if the civil rights of individuals were being disturbed and you needed the deployment to help restore them because the local forces wouldn't protect those civil rights.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a standing military and its potential use against citizens.
Share
More from Jeff Merkley
It looked like bombs had gone off in these towns. Thousands of people in the fairgrounds who couldn’t return to their homes. We want expertise, and the mistreatment of the federal expertise, the civil service, is going to hurt us for…
Offering bets on destructive wildfires threatens to minimize communities’ suffering all so the rich and powerful can profit.
Once an Administration begins punishing Americans for how they vote, the threat extends far beyond these projects: no state, community, business, or worker can trust that the federal government will apply the law fairly.
IVF should be accessible and affordable to all – it’s critical care for folks wanting to start or expand their family.





