What is the only branch of the military specifically authorized to maintain a standing force under the constitution?

I'm sorry, you didn't answer in the form of a question.

Danm...that was for the daily double...I hate it when that happens

Article 1 Section 8 "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;" I think you're alright too. Let me modify my original point: active army and air force servicemembers, same question.

The National Guard is not quite the Militia. They are more like "Provencal"
Troops of colonial times.

I don't think it's a stretch to call the Army and Air Force "armies". For this reason military personnel funding must be approved every year.

It is much harder to find any constitutional authority for any executive departments.

LTC (Join to see) I see your point on the militias vs the national guard, Sir. Somehow I don't think the intent was to require annual budgetary approval so much as to prevent standing armies. In fact I would argue the concept of a monolithic national army was generally foreign and the plural use of the term armies was intended to apply to activated and raised forces, presumably used in wars declared by congress, with the two year limit designed to require re-authorization every two years following a declaration of war. Concur on the executive department point for sure.

The Founder's Intent is no secret, they were all well written. You are correct in your evaluation of it. I'm stating that our way of operating is a way around the restrictions plac