Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Calling any and all U.S. history buffs out there-i need help!

profile picture
Pisces
Posts: 905 - Karma: 13
alright my american history teacher has a bonus question every week, and none of them are easily found. i have asked every history teacher i know at my school, and none of them know. i get 10 points if i figure it out. anyone know the answer i truied every search possible on google, and found nothing.

Patton, Eisenhower, Nimitz And Bradley Were all in violation Of the U.S. Constitution by being what?

any and all help is appreicated.
Dec 19 2006 3:14PM
0 0
profile picture
Capt.Flannel
Posts: 10928 - Karma: 36
by being generals in a standing military.

Might be right.
Dec 19 2006 3:17PM
0 0
profile picture
LostValleyPowMan
Posts: 820 - Karma: 17
U.S. military leaders born outside the U.S. during a world war
Dec 19 2006 3:18PM
0 0
profile picture
SpankyAnalWhore
Posts: 500 - Karma: 10
does this go with a topic youre doing in class? if so, what topic?
Dec 19 2006 3:18PM
0 0
profile picture
user098123
Posts: 6072 - Karma: 18
Treason maybe?
Dec 19 2006 3:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Capt.Flannel
Posts: 10928 - Karma: 36
I don't think that was in the constitution, because the constitution was written at a time where a standing military was illegal, correct?

(actual question, not sarcasm).
Dec 19 2006 3:19PM
0 0
profile picture
TechnoPotamus
Posts: 11626 - Karma: 3,522
by being badass mother fuckin players.

cuz you know the constitution is always tryin to cramp our dam style son.
Dec 19 2006 3:23PM
0 0
profile picture
Pisces
Posts: 905 - Karma: 13
not especially atm were just reviewing the constitution and such,but he always likes to throw twists into the class. the thing that sucks is that only one person per class can answer it so iwanna give him the answer tomorrow if anyone is sure of one.
Dec 19 2006 3:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Capt.Flannel
Posts: 10928 - Karma: 36
Well mine is correct in connecting all of them to the constitution, but I don't know if he's looking for something more specific, such as an event or date.
Dec 19 2006 3:27PM
0 0
profile picture
LostValleyPowMan
Posts: 820 - Karma: 17
i know patton hit a soldier... don't know about the others though ... good luck dude
Dec 19 2006 3:27PM
0 0
profile picture
Pisces
Posts: 905 - Karma: 13
i doubt he is. im checking the bios on all four of them, and you might be right. im gonna check the constitution as well to make sure it is a violation. if it is, im handing it in nice and early tomorrow morning. huge thanks to you if its correct, i appreciate it mucho.
Dec 19 2006 3:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Capt.Flannel
Posts: 10928 - Karma: 36
here's a link to all military information in the constitution:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/amar.html

I may or may not be right, because I know that having a strong unorganized militia was important and that Congress had the right to organize a military, but I'm pretty sure that it was unconstitutional to have a standing military during times of peace.
Dec 19 2006 3:38PM
0 0
profile picture
AtomicTweaker
Posts: 2341 - Karma: 16
i think its milatary leaders who went against the commander in chiefs (the presidents) wishes
Dec 19 2006 4:07PM
0 0
profile picture
LostValleyPowMan
Posts: 820 - Karma: 17
YOU MAY BE RIGHT
Dec 19 2006 4:12PM
0 0
profile picture
LostValleyPowMan
Posts: 820 - Karma: 17
BUT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT...? tHEY WERE 4 STAR GENERALS...?
Dec 19 2006 4:12PM
0 0
profile picture
bigdaddytmac
Posts: 1448 - Karma: 14
thats tough i want to know the answer now
Dec 19 2006 4:13PM
0 0
profile picture
bigdaddytmac
Posts: 1448 - Karma: 14
The only problem I see with your answer is that they were all wartime generals, which is the opposite of a standing army is it not?
Dec 19 2006 4:15PM
0 0
profile picture
wAy2sTeEzY4u
Posts: 5449 - Karma: 20
you can turn caps lock off it ok.


i know that patton broke orders, so it could be treason but im not sure.
Dec 19 2006 4:15PM
0 0
profile picture
LostValleyPowMan
Posts: 820 - Karma: 17
YA... BUT IT COULD BE IN AN AMENDMEND... IM THINKING LIKE AFTER WORLD WAR I OR SOMETHING... IDK
Dec 19 2006 4:28PM
0 0
profile picture
LostValleyPowMan
Posts: 820 - Karma: 17
I DON'T THINK A STANDING MILITARY WAS ILLEGAL... THE U.S. STILL HAD A MILITARY AND LOCAL MILITAS
Dec 19 2006 4:29PM
0 0
profile picture
C-Burg
Posts: 4729 - Karma: 130

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Dec 19 2006 5:01PM
0 0
profile picture
BurgRider
Posts: 1597 - Karma: 17
I believe it was because they differed the civilian policy.

Either by giving special treatment to all civilians rather than official selected groups or quatering of soldiers. 

Im pretty sure its the first one though of giving special treatment
Dec 19 2006 5:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Pisces
Posts: 905 - Karma: 13
ok so whats the consent on final answers? theres a few that were tossed out there, so im not sure.
Dec 19 2006 8:30PM
0 0
profile picture
maclem
Posts: 2497 - Karma: 17
they were 5-STAR generals in a standing military
Dec 19 2006 9:41PM
0 0
profile picture
SharfSchutze
Posts: 130 - Karma: 10
No they weren't. They couldn't go any higher then 4 at that point.
Dec 19 2006 9:43PM
0 0
profile picture
dozerr
Posts: 4007 - Karma: 403
hooray for not knowing anything, and having my american politics final tomorrow!
Dec 19 2006 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
C-Burg
Posts: 4729 - Karma: 130
wow you are a moron, you can have 5 star generals in a standing army, he is second in command after the president
Dec 19 2006 10:15PM
0 0
profile picture
C-Burg
Posts: 4729 - Karma: 130
wow, you are a moron, Eisenhower was a 5 star general
Dec 19 2006 10:16PM
0 0
profile picture
SharfSchutze
Posts: 130 - Karma: 10
Yep you're right. My bad.
Dec 19 2006 10:22PM
0 0
profile picture
snowforblood
Posts: 1861 - Karma: 16
Patton was born in California
Dec 19 2006 10:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Capt.Flannel
Posts: 10928 - Karma: 36
do a little research and figure out which one you think is correct, being that it's for extra credit in YOUR class.
Dec 19 2006 10:50PM
0 0
profile picture
snowforblood
Posts: 1861 - Karma: 16
Ha I think I found it!!! The Constitution prohibits nobel orders, but apparently Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton (as far as I know) were installed in England's Most Noble Order of the Bath. Whatever that is, but I found a website that wrote about it.

Here is the link http://www.clancyfaq.com/TCPosts.htm

The only problem is the text is unreadable unless you copy and paste it into word. If you want the exact text, ask me and I will send it to you.
Dec 19 2006 10:58PM
0 0
profile picture
snowforblood
Posts: 1861 - Karma: 16
Yea, I'm pretty sure this is it. The website states "The Constitution prohibits nobel orders. But the Brits love to give them out. It is an institutional way for their culture to recognize and reward outstanding public service. This probably would not work in our culture, but the idea is not entirely without merit. Other countries have similar procedures, by the way. The British ones are merely those most familiar to Americans. General Dwight David Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, George Patton, and probably others (most likely Nimitz included) were installed in the Most Noble Order of the Bath."

So take that info and shove it in your teachers face for being that much of a history dork. And if he asks how you found out, just tell him you are a Tom Clancy fan like him, because Tom Clancy touched on this fun little fact in his book Patriot Games. Good luck!
Dec 19 2006 11:11PM
0 0
profile picture
SharfSchutze
Posts: 130 - Karma: 10
Yep. You're right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Nimitz

He got the order of the bath too. Didn't even think of that. Good find.
Dec 19 2006 11:23PM
0 0
profile picture
snowforblood
Posts: 1861 - Karma: 16
learn somethin new everyday baby. Plus American History is badass most of the time
Dec 19 2006 11:28PM
0 0
profile picture
FERREZZ
Posts: 2234 - Karma: 19
word, i wanna know what the answer is, im been searchin around now... let us know if you get the right one tomamrow
Dec 19 2006 11:33PM
0 0
profile picture
snowforblood
Posts: 1861 - Karma: 16
I already figured it out man. read above
Dec 19 2006 11:34PM
0 0
profile picture
maclem
Posts: 2497 - Karma: 17
i know its a mott point since the answer has already been found out, but I was saying that the fact that they were all 5 star generals in a standing army, not that there cant be a 5 star general in a standing army, LEARN how to understand words!
Dec 22 2006 8:43PM
0 0
profile picture
user098123
Posts: 6072 - Karma: 18
I'm pretty sure we all know how to read the words you posted, and I thought the same thing as someone else. Maybe you should make your statement more clear before posting next time.
Dec 22 2006 8:51PM
0 0
profile picture
C-Burg
Posts: 4729 - Karma: 130
ike was the only 5 star general, Patton, Brady, Nimitz, ect were only 4 star
Dec 23 2006 12:14AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)