Is there a fatal flaw in the Constitution of 1788?

PO3 Aaron Hassay — Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:15:24 -0400

Constitution Preamble "We the People...Establish Justice, Insure Domestic Tranquility". No Mention why Military who Swore Oath to Defend "Constitution" suffer injury illness known proximate duty suffer wait for well funded VA intellectual administrative debated denial letters. Should the Constitution State Military Injury Illness Proximate Duty is protected instantly beyond the guise of finance?

Response by TSgt Joe C. made Jul 16 at 2017 10:21 PM

TSgt Joe C. — Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:21:17 -0400

1788 vs 2017 may be why. Really not sure what else to say.....

Response by Maj William W. 'Bill' Price made Jul 16 at 2017 10:48 PM

Maj William W. 'Bill' Price — Sun, 16 Jul 2017 22:48:51 -0400

I smell gamey troll buttocks. Verify yourself, sir, as either a service member or veteran before we comment further.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 16 at 2017 11:04 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 16 Jul 2017 23:04:02 -0400

Although the question is worded ambiguously, I am confident in responding, no, the Constitution is not flawed. It was crafted to describe a republican form of government with extremely limited powers. Any issue beyond that is a matter of laws which are crafted by the Legislative branch, administered by the Executive branch, and adjudicated by the Judicial branch.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 17 at 2017 12:10 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:10:09 -0400

The problem is that we should not have a standing federal army.

Response by SGT Eric Knutson made Jul 17 at 2017 1:38 AM

SGT Eric Knutson — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 01:38:08 -0400

Difference of the ages, in 1788 the govt did not envision a standing military with a global reach, or in the numbers we have currently, let alone prior to 1990 when we were at our fullest outside of WW2 itself. They were most likely thinking State militias to be federalized at need, and indeed for the most part that is the way we operated in large part up until 1940 or so. Up until WW2, (I have been led to believe) that in the Marine corps, if you were a SSG and above, or Capt and above, you pretty much knew EVERYONE in the Corps, because they were so small. And the officer corps across all 3 were highly limited in numbers as well. If I also remember correctly, (to give a perspective) the entire USMC for pre WW2 would almost be outnumbered by a current Light or Airborne Infantry Div, and they were scattered all over the globe then as well.
The answer to your question though, is No, it sounds good, but like so many other good sounding plans to change the Constitution, there are 10 bad ones. It is one reason that many are nervous about the possebilities for the Convention of States that many are pushing. Better for all if we focus on actually following the laws we have, and make them work first, but for that we need to stop letting Politician, be a full time position for life as some have turned it into.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 17 at 2017 6:37 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:37:29 -0400

Where's the beef? Too many words for me to decipher what your issue is. That military people suffer due to service? That the system is not as responsive as it could or should be? To the first, I think most that serve realize the dangers of military service. Things happen that might not have been clearly defined up front, such as Agent Orange, friendly fire, chem/bio exposure etc. To the latter, write your Congressman. The system is not perfect but the only way to change it is to use the tools available.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jul 17 at 2017 7:23 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 07:23:00 -0400

No, The Constitution does not need to address VA benefits. The reason it doesn't is there was no VA back in the late 1700's. If you fought in the Army/Navy/Marine Corp, when you were done, you went home and were mostly, on your own to recover from injuries received during war.

We have passed many laws since then addressing Veterans benefits. We have set up an entire medical establishment/system, many supporting agencies and there are a host of private organizations too.

All of us (after the draft era of Vietnam) willingly volunteered for service in the armed forces. We were not conscripted, there was no draft or force making us go there. You could have also walked away after your contract was up. I know there have been a few stop losses over the years but that is not exactly a draft.

Veterans not gravely injured/wounded in service need to be accountable for themselves, their actions, their situation in life etc. Leaning on a government for benefits is not a healthy thing to do. Once many get in the system they complain about they very system they are in. It isn't good enough, flexible enough, fast enough etc.

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Jul 17 at 2017 9:34 AM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:34:47 -0400

The Constitution was written by men. Men are, inherently, flawed, therefore, the Constitution is flawed. Thankfully, the writers gave us a mechanism with which to fix the flaws.

Having said that, no, we don't need an additional amendment to address veterans' issues, just a Legislature and Executive brave enough to fulfill promises made to the service members.