Hoping this is the right subreddit for this question, but I was in a discussion with someone regarding this topic, and was hoping to get a somewhat professional opinion.
The person I was debating was claiming the a standing army is constitutional due to the article allowing congress to maintain and support an army. I argued that the clause only allows for congress to appropriate funds for this for a period of no longer than two years.
He insists that that provision only means that the appropriation has to be renewed every two years, but to me, the only way that makes sense is to add words to the line in question.
Can someone with more knowledge than I give an opinion on the matter?
Edit: For clarity, I'm wondering about the historical implications here. How it relates to the understanding of the constitution and the framers intent. From my reading, it seems pretty clear that the founders were opposed to a standing army, and therefore, it doesn't make any logical sense to me to read this clause as the person I am debating does. It leads me to believe that our founders would not be too happy with our past 50+ years of military policy.
This clause is found in the enumerated powers section of Article One (Section 8). So the full text of the clause states:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
A plain reading of the text suggests that the only limitation is on appropriations lasting longer than two years. There is no limit on re-appropriations, so that would be a strike against your interpretation and in favor of your friend's.
According to the Cornell University School of Law's Annotated Version of the Constitution, this particular clause does not appear to have ever been adjudicated in the courts. There have been two Attorney General decisions on the topic (1904 and 1948), neither of which appears to support your view, mostly using a very strict understanding of the word "support" to back up their claim. Their argument is that appropriations that are limited by the clause “are those only which are to raise and support armies in the strict sense of the word ‘support,’ and that the inhibition of that clause does not extend to appropriations for the various means which an army may use in military operations, or which are deemed necessary for the common defense. . . .”. The annotated Constitution does not go into detail about what those decisions meant the term "support" to mean, but one could surmise it's very, very limited (something like direct pay for soldiers or the like would be my guess, since equipment doesn't appear to be covered by the clause according to their decisions).
So the short answer to your question is: We cannot say for certain, as the ultimate arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution (USSC) have never taken up the question. Until the courts determine that it means something different, that plain reading is likely to be the understanding of the clause for the foreseeable future.
From my reading, it seems pretty clear that the founders were opposed to a standing army
The problem is that that also ascribes to the group a greater unity of thought and opinion than they really had. There was virtually no topic they all agreed on, and on what they thought each clause really meant. Some such as Adams and Jefferson, along with Madison to a degree were perfectly happy with Militia, but they had also never had to fight in the field with them, while others did argue something more was needed.
We can also point to many of the Founder being extremely unhappy and not very trusting of Militia and recognizing that despite Congress's really, really bad record with supplying and paying a standing army one was needed and that it would have to be damn small to appease everyone(those fearful of erosion of "freedom" and those worried about the ability to keep it paid and not mutinous) but also able to support Westward expansion, mostly due to their service on the Continentals. Washington, Hamilton, and Knox all fall into this category.
The fact that we at no point, EVER had no standing army, even when the Founders could easily have made it so (the Army at one point numbered just 300 men at West Point and outside Pittsburgh) is also strong evidence that they were ok keeping it around in some form.
This submission has been removed because it involves current events. To keep from discussion of politics, we have a 20-year rule here. You may want to try /r/ask_politics or another current-events focused sub.