Anti-Federalist

"It is admitted that to prohibit the general government, from keeping up standing armies, while yet they were authorised to raise them in case of exigency, would be an insufficient guard against the danger. A discretion of such latitude would give room to elude the force of the provision.
It is also admitted that an absolute prohibition against raising troops, except in cases of actual war, would be improper; because it will be requisite to raise and support a small number of troops to garrison the important frontier posts, and to guard arsenals; and it may happen, that the danger of an attack from a foreign power may be so imminent, as to render it highly proper we should raise an army, in order to be prepared to resist them. But to raise and keep up forces for such purposes and on such occasions, is not included in the idea, of keeping up standing armies in times of peace. "
Anti Federalist #10 Brutus

         This passage implies that it is unnecessary for governments to obtain and have standing armies when it is not needed, such as in moments of peace when there are no known tensions or issues needed defense. I chose this passage because it opposes Madison's passage about maintaining active troops although they can be a little dangerous, Madison imposes that attacks can be sudden and tensions can arise at any moment so an active military are necessary. Brutus thinks of the negative impact and the abilities of  having an active army at a time of peace.

         Horizontal federalism ranges from state to state and is based off of these interstitial relationship however vertical federalism is the older version where the government is put on a pedestal and follows constitutional ways, and only involves the government.

~Cindy Dickson

Federalists Pt. 2 C. Dickson

"If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe --our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other."
-Hamilton Federalist #8 Paragraph 12

        This specific passage draws out the difference between Europe and the United States, and how we must apply some of the European ways to certain situations, but to avoid them lingering too much. In this Hamilton tells us that it is okay to have minimal military security, however, total and large amount of military power is unnecessary, maybe that's what works in Europe, but it will not work here. When military action is instilled, he notes that everyday citizen would perceive himself as a victim, having to succumb to a higher authority, thus making society prone to jealousy. Military power between states is known to cause some sort of friction when powers of authority are placed face to face at state borders.

"The powers falling within the FIRST class are those of declaring war and granting letters of marque; of providing armies and fleets; of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money.

Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.

Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing Confederation establishes this power in the most ample form.

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense." -Madison Federalist #41 

          This passage questions how much power and authority we give the Government and how much control they have over our daily lives. Madison questions whether that much power is needed, when governing so many people. To allow the Government to decide on invasions and wars and finances seems to be okay with Madison. He notes that armies and an active military can at times be dangerous, but in times of need, that same army protects the people. If the Government were not given its powers, the citizens would drive themselves into turmoil as they would lack structure. When opening this piece, Madison's approach was a little ambiguous, much like the passage I chose; it seems he would argue against Government power, but then he argues for it. 

Constitution

Cindy Dickson

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This clause says that a single state cannot and shall not take any military action without obtaining necessary permission from the nation as a whole, and its political powers, particularly congress. WHat this means is that no military action can be taken under the power of just that state, it must be done under congress. 

 This eliminates the idea of complete individualism in each state and brings all the states together to understand that whatever steps that are taken, must be evaluated by congress, unless an attack has already occurred, and defense is what's necessary to prevent further damage. In this specific section, states are informed about what they can and cannot do, just to maintain stability within the nation. This section is significant in a sense that it builds the idea of unity and equality among the states, which is what the constitution was aimed at, the spread of unity and equality amongst the nation and its inhabitants. The reason I chose this particular section was because it is evident, in today's times, how powerful congress is, even with the Syria situation going on, the President himself could not decide about the invasion of Syria, it required congress' approval before any action could be taken, and this goes to show that this particular clause is still in effect and applies to everyone, not just small state leaders, but also the nation's leader.