The United States Constitution in Relation to the Army Officers Corps - Coursework Example

and Number of the Teacher’s THE UNITED S CONSTITUTION IN RELATION TO THE ARMY OFFICERS’ CORPS Introduction The Constitution of the United States first drafted in 1787, has undergone major changes. It continues to provide an exemplary framework for representative government and the protection of fundamental rights. The constitution consists of seven articles and twenty-seven amendments. It grants powers to the central government, divides those powers among the various branches, and limits the powers of both the central government and the states. To guard against possible abuse of governmenal power, there are three main structural principles which underscore the Constitution: federalism which divides power between the constituent states, separation of powers which allocates authority among the three branches of the federal government, and checks and balances which give branches authority to mutually impede illegal actions of one another. Constitutional amendments cannot deprive a state of its equal voice in the Senate without its consent. The first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights (Currie: 2, 10). The purpose of this paper is to determine how the Constitution of the United States relates to the Army Officer Corps. Discussion Of the twenty-seven amendments, the first ten are known as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people “to keep and bear arms” to ensure the availability of a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state. The Third Amendment protects against the quartering of troops in private homes both during time of peace without the consent of the owner, and during time of war, except in a manner prescribed by law (Currie: 10-11; Encyclopedia, 2004). Article I of the U.S. Constitution includes time limit on appropriations for the army, conscription of men for the army, care of the armed forces, trial and punishment of offenses, war legislation, delegation of legislative power in wartime, constitutional rights in wartime, personal liberty in the civilian areas, rent and price controls, and other important policies (FindLaw, 2009). Article II, Section 2. of the Constitution asserts that the President is the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States and of the militia of the several states, besides his other powers (U.S. Constitution, 2008). The American political system forms the backdrop for American military professionalism, the core of which is represented in the democratic institutions established in the Constitution. The Constitution’s division of powers and authority along with its system of checks and balances has succeeded in not only defending the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic, but in upholding the liberty it was meant to preserve. The power and the right of the people to establish government is on the presupposition of the duty of each individual to obey the established government. A republic was seen as the best way to uphold liberty and ensure the security of its citizens. The theory of democracy ensures that political agents remain accountable to the polity. Civil-military relations in a democracy are a special application of representative democracy, with the unique concern that designated politcal agents control designated military agents. Acceptance of civilian control and supremacy by an obedient military has been the core principle of the American tradition of civil-military relations (Ulrich: 344). United States military officers take an oath to uphold the democratic institutions that form the very fabric of the American way of life. Their client is American society which has entrusted the officer corps with the mission of preserving the nation’s values and national purpose. Ultimately, every action of the American military professional is associated with this faith entrusted on him or her. A military professional cannot operate independently from the state or society that he/ she serves. Whether the service is authoritarian, democratic, or both, the service forms an integral part of society, and forms the basis for a set of relationships. The character of a democratic state’s civil military relations has implications for the quality of its national security policy, the preservation of the democratic values on which the state was founded, and the relationship between the democracy’s citizens and the military. The crucial factor in this process is the requirement of a brand of professionalism within the officer corps, that is consistent with these underlying principles (Ulrich: 344). Democratic military professionalism of the United States Army Officers’ Corps is unique since it has to direct, operate and control an organisation whose predominant function is the threat or use of deadly military might against enemy forces or targets that the political leadership designates. Military professionals in all political systems share a mandate to be as competent as possible in their functional areas of responsibility in order to defend their political goals of their respective states. However, military professionals who serve democratic states face the added responsibility of maximising functional competency without being detrimental to the state’s democratic character. The development of democratic military professionals is especially crucial for the requirement to balance the functional imperative which is: providing for the national defense, with the societal imperative: preserving and protecting democratic values. Officers who are comfortable with their roles as democratic military professionals are better equipped to navigate the complex terrain of civil-military relations (Ulrich: 345). Democratic military professionals such as the the U.S. Army Officers Corps do not perform their responsibilities to the state in isolation. They are part of a larger national security community made up of national security professionals from both the civilian and military spheres, other participants such as journalists and academics who contribute intellectual capital and foster debate, legislative bodies, and the public to whom all of the above are responsible. National security policy is the product of the overlapping participation of all the above members. The military national security professional or army officer is rooted in technical expertise and operational knowledge related to the use of force. The lines separating the competencies of the army officer corps and political leaders is becoming increaingly blurred (Ulrich: 345). A strategic environment that is full of military operations other than war, nongovernmental participants and uncertain public support leads to unclear roles in both the military and civilian spheres. Even if clear lines between peace and war are drawn, the era is now past, when war was regarded as solely the domain of soldiers and international politics the exclusive domain of diplomats. To formulate effective national security policy, all participants must develop overlapping competence in military as well as civilian affairs. Civil-military relations have a specific structure that channels participants’ competencies and responsibilities to maximize security at minimum cost to democratic principles. This would help in achieving balanced civil-military relations and effective national security policy outcomes (Ulrich: 345). The distinct constitutional role bestowed on the army officers’ corps is based on a comprehensive set of norms that determines the breadth and depth of their participation in the national security process. Important areas are army officer corps’ political-social expertise used in the formulation of policy, and participation in political processes in general (Ulrich: 345). Conclusion This paper has highlighted the United States Constitution in relation to the Army Officer Corps. Besides military operations, the various duties and responsibilities that the Constitution bestows on the Army Officer Corps include civil-military relations and effective participation in integrated national security policy implementation in the service of the country. Works Cited Currie, David P. The constitution of the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (2000). Encyclopedia. The American Constitution 3: Amendments 1-10 (Bill of Rights). (2004). Retrieved on 11th January, 2009 from: http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/const3.htm FindLaw. U.S. Constitution: Article I. Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. War; Military Establishment. (2009). Retrieved on 11th January, 2009 from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/41.html#1 Ulrich, Marybeth P. Infusing civil-military relations norms in the officer corps. In Paul J. Bolt, Damon V. Coletta, Collins G. Shackelford, Collins G. Shackelford, Jr. (Eds.) American defense policy. Eighth edition. Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. (2005): pp.344- 358. U.S. Constitution. The United States Constitution. U.S. Constitution Online. 2008. Retrieved on 11th January, 2009 from: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html Read More