Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"provide for the common defense"

At this current time with the current technology and level of corporate responsibility and the level of the suppressing with the introduction of new technology would it be correct to have a privatized military?

Currently, there is a balance because of the existence of "militias",gun rights groups and state controlled military.

If any side becomes stronger it would create an imbalance into the society especially a society where some have not controlled their human emotions and impulses for power.

If there is any private control then it would have to be run by someone who respects the constitution and the natural rights of others.

Another part of the Constitution states:

Article 1 -
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Would a private military entity would have this function also:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Or would this private entity declare war on all threats or would it neglect parts of the union (nation-state) because of its own self-interest???

Privatizing the military may introduce a spiraling of how the Roman empire collapsed.

The powers of the state is through congress:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Looking through Article 1 we could sense that the state would have control of private enterprises as long as those enterprises are loyal to the state. Total independence of private armies would be impossible under the directive of the U.S. Constitution.

Then we go back to a further stipulation and we observe that the U.S. state/government is at times obligated to respect other nation's laws or another body of laws (non-U.S. Constitution):

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

It also says concerning "militias":

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

further to also explain the powers of the individual state within the union which also could express the limited powers of any "private" entity:

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point being that any idea of a totally private enterprise independent of the confines of the directives of the U.S. Congress would be considered illegal.

Yes, an amendment is possible. Yet again, the current realities and the current human impulse for power would curtail any possibility of total privatization of the military.

"Article V -
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. "

Again Private armies could decide not to be loyal to U.S. or neglect some states would be violating this stipulation:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The existence of "militias" and the right to self-defense is noted in the 2nd Amendment:

Amendment II