Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin and Eugene Volokh are blogging about the constitutionality (perhaps more precisely the constitutional status) of the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard. It's all pretty Scholastic, but since Eugene claims "the question I pose is theoretically nontrivial," let's play along.
In the first place, let's remember that the mode of constitutional interpretation that is commonly referred to as "originalism" in fact consists of three rather distinct modes of inquiry. Let us define originalism as "the belief that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who composed and adopted it." Next, we'll define textualism as " a formalist theory of statutory interpretation which holds that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law." Finally, I have defined traditionalism as looking "at how the Constitution has been interpreted over time, such that well-established traditions become entrenched."
I am both a lawyer and a former Jarhead.
Marines traditionally participated in the hand-to-hand fighting associated with boarding enemy ships and in projecting force ashore. While the former doesn’t happen much anymore, the latter is still extremely relevant.
The constitutional aspect of using Marines for prolonged campaigns ashore, such as in Iraq, is interesting, but would it not be impossible to constitutionalize how long the Marines could continue a fight? Once they’ve landed, they should be able to prosecute a fight to its conclusion. It may be a matter of days, weeks, months, or perhaps longer.
Next entry: Politicians and Consistency
Previous entry: Partisan Front Page of the University of Chicago Law School Website
But if Eugene is right that the Framers saw land-based forces as more dangerous to domestic liberty,and sea-based forces as more important to national defense, and if you are right that the Framers intended the Marines to be part of the Navy, then doesn’t it follow under an originalist interpretative account that the Marines must keep one toe in the water, as it were—i.e., that the modern practice of using the Marines for strictly land-based duty is unconstitutional?