is the pledge unconstitutional?

As usual, your response is not relevant to the point i was making to David.

Idiot.

This is a particular case. Not long after Fido arrived, he was telling me what he claimed i didn't understand, and was using foul language, and in a particular case in which his ignorance of the subject was breathtaking. I told him i'd rather not see him respond to my posts at all. For a very long time, he held to that. Now he has started posting his drivel again in response to what i write, and quoting me in the process. I've told him that for as long as he does that, this is the kind of response he can expect.

Why do you whine about how i respond to other people? It's tedious, you know, especially given the nasty way your responded to me in your first thread here because i questioned your coherence.

I said that I don't see what is legally in violation qua moving military assets from one place to another in America. I questioned any interference from Article I Section 8. The Secretary of War coud do that in furtherance of the power of the President. He was lawfully in possession of federal military assets. He had and has Constitutional authority to move them from one federal installation to another one. I fail to see any cause for objection.

The one example you provided was based on a congressional act.
Article One, Section Eight very clearly grants to Congress the right
to provide for arming the militia--to me, that is an unequivocal statement of where the power resides.

A subsequent congressional investigation found that Secretary Floyd had acted illegally. Applying the historiographic principle of cui bono, i'm willing to concede that the Congress as it existed subsequent to secession and before 1865 might have been conducting a biased investigation. However, that Congress may have reached that conclusion on a questionable basis does not constitute evidence that the conclusion is false.

You are wrong about Mr. Floyd in two respects, one literal and the other practical.
The first is that he sent the weapons to state arsenals.

The second is that these weapons were seized from those arsenals.
All of them nominally remained the property of the United States,
but that meant nothing in the schemes of the fire-brands bent on war.

Yes, i disagree. Mr. Floyd not only did not seek congressional approval,
he did not inform Mr. Buchanan of his actions.

In shipping those guns to the arsenals of states which he had every expectation would secede,
and then seize the contents of the arsenal, he willfully put them beyond the control of Mr. Buchanan.

I also deny the rather simple-minded view that the weapons of the United States armed forces
are the possessions of whomever holds the ofice of President at any given time.

Do you allege that the President may alienate them? He may give them away, sell them,
destroy them--all without reference to the congress which authorize their purchase or manufacture? I'm not buying that.

The guns were moved in 1860. Who was the President or the President-elect at the time the guns were moved
has no bearing on the legality of the issue. Floyd did appear in March 1861, to answer a grand jury indictment in Washington,
which indictment was thrown out.

Anyone familiar with the sentiments in Maryland and Washington City will not be surprised at that.
The conclusion of the Floyd inquiry was that Congress asked the Supreme Court to review their findings,
and that body came to the conclusion that Floyd had acted illegally, and even that he had engaged in corruption.

Oh, by the way, as for your thesis that the weapons and munitions were 'possessions" of Mr. Buchanan, when he learned of the shipments after Floyd's resignation, he cancelled the orders for heavy ordnance (i.e., cannons) which had not yet been delivered, and and cancelled all other shipment orders which were still in process. Do you assert that by taking actions with Mr. Buchanan's "property" (as you allege it)

without Mr. Buchanan's prior knowledge and consent, Mr. Floyd was nonetheless acting legally?