No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes, there is that. Language evolves. While it is the 21st century, we have to interpret their words as they understood them in the 18th century.
We also have to understand some context. There was a serious effort for the USA not to have a military. It was envisioned that state militias could be called up from amongst the masses. Eventually the Army and Navy were incorporated into the Constitution (Article 1)**, but the anti-federalists -fearing a powerful federal government- then envisioned states being able to raise a militia to oppose -if necessary- the federal. Which is mostly what Madison was talking about in the Federalist paper quoted by Dope1. In the prior paragraph to the one Dope1 quoted, he explicitly was expressing concern about subjugation of state government. The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition.
However, that militia was supposed to be regulated. Hamilton discussed that in Federalist 29.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline in the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects.
In other words, they need to know what they're doing (i.e. have some training, some discipline and organization characteristic of a military force, etc).
**So the Air Force actually is unconstitutional. They realized that early-on, which is why you had the Army Air Corps (because the Army was constitutional), and then Navy fliers. A separate Air Force technically isn't authorized, but I think the argument was that 18th century men could not have anticipated we would have machines that fly.
