Seems like they’re hinting at a coup in this news article about former top generals saying they are having trouble maintaining the traditional relationship between the military and civilian worlds.
Past Pentagon leaders warn of strains on civilian-military relations
The Pentagon’s former defense secretaries and top generals warned Tuesday that political polarization and other societal strains are creating an “exceptionally challenging” environment for maintaining the traditional relationship between the military and civilian worlds.
They didn’t get the memo that we’re not even supposed to have a standing army, in that any military activity is authorized for two years and must be renewed to stay in effect.
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (source)
Since politicians have re-authorized military spending every two years since the dawn of time, we have former military top brass stretching their arms and just kind of saying in passing that it’s difficult for them to take orders from civilians.
From Bing.com on the topic of standing armies, I found:
What does the constitution say about standing armies?
The Heritage Guide to The Constitution. Army Clause. The Congress shall have Power To …raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years….
For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty.
Army Clause | The Heritage Guide to the Constitution www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/52/army …
Top Gun: Maverick didn’t mention this point.