He's Not Your Commander In Chief

[gnjsdad]

The author makes a good constitutional point. However, I wish he had discussed the congressional authoriztion for the Iraq invasion.

Like many Americans, I’ve heard it so many times in casual conversations that I can cite it verbatim: “I’m not sure Bush is doing everything the best way, but he is our commander in chief, and we need to stand behind him during this time of war.”

I used to respond with the truthful reply that “He’s not MY commander in chief,” but that only made me look like a terrorist-loving, communist, pacifist, Islamofascist pinko to whomever I was speaking. So I’ve modified my response: “He’s not your commander in chief, unless you are active-duty military. Are you currently in active-duty service?”

That response always gets a perplexed look, as citing the Constitution tends to do in this era of constitutional ignorance, and only rarely ends in a straight answer to my question. The constitutionally literate are always suspected of being tinfoil-hat-wearing loons these days – until I continue: "Article Two of the U.S. Constitution says that 'the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.’ So if you are not in the military, the president isn’t your commander in chief, as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned."

The entire article…

 

[Jeffrey]

Just another worthless article from the worthless American hating libs.

gnjsdad:

The author makes a good constitutional point. However, I wish he had discussed the congressional authoriztion for the Iraq invasion.

Like many Americans, I’ve heard it so many times in casual conversations that I can cite it verbatim: “I’m not sure Bush is doing everything the best way, but he is our commander in chief, and we need to stand behind him during this time of war.”

I used to respond with the truthful reply that “He’s not MY commander in chief,” but that only made me look like a terrorist-loving, communist, pacifist, Islamofascist pinko to whomever I was speaking. So I’ve modified my response: “He’s not your commander in chief, unless you are active-duty military. Are you currently in active-duty service?”

That response always gets a perplexed look, as citing the Constitution tends to do in this era of constitutional ignorance, and only rarely ends in a straight answer to my question. The constitutionally literate are always suspected of being tinfoil-hat-wearing loons these days – until I continue: "Article Two of the U.S. Constitution says that 'the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.’ So if you are not in the military, the president isn’t your commander in chief, as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned."

The entire article…

 

[Karin]

Well he does have a point…as nobody in my family is in the military he is not “our commander in chief”…he is just the President to us (nothing more or less)

Jeffrey:

Just another worthless article from the worthless American hating libs.

 

[Seamus]

The president has no powers to order the military to do anything, unless Congress first orders it.

Somebody better tell the Pentagon.

As commander in chief, Bush’s responsibility under the Constitution is to do what Congress tells him to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

What this kid knows about US constitutional law wouldn’t fill a thimble.

 

[gilliam]

Karin:

Well he does have a point…as nobody in my family is in the military he is not “our commander in chief”…he is just the President to us (nothing more or less)

Well, the President has the power to enforce all federal laws. I can think of a lot of people with less power over me than that but I can’t think of many with more.

 

[Sir_Knight]

gnjsdad:

"Article Two of the U.S. Constitution says that ’

the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States*.’ *So who is in charge of the Air Force?

The Marines are a branch of the Navy but the Air Force is now a seperate entity from the Army. Who’s in charge of them?

 

[MikeWM]

Seamus:

What this kid knows about US constitutional law wouldn’t fill a thimble.

Possibly quite a lot then, given the last person you said that about knows quite a bit about US constitutional law

Mike

 

[Seamus]

I’m not so sure about that. I’ve said it a couple of times now in reference to a couple of different people. It’s a good line that fits me well, much like an old leather coat that you would never dream of parting with. Perhaps I should consider making it my signature line?

 

[davy39]

Sir Knight:

So who is in charge of the Air Force?

The Marines are a branch of the Navy but the Air Force is now a seperate entity from the Army. Who’s in charge of them?

The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. I believe that includes the marines and the air force. He is also the president and should be respected as such.

 

[Wolseley]

Karin:

Well he does have a point…

Yeah, but if he wears a hat, nobody’ll notice.

This is just another one of those “anybody but Bush” people who seems to have a pathological hatred of W. Wonder why he doesn’t emigrate to someplace like North Korea? He certainly wouldn’t have to put up with Bush there, would he?

 

[gilliam]

Sir Knight:

So who is in charge of the Air Force?

The Marines are a branch of the Navy but the Air Force is now a seperate entity from the Army. Who’s in charge of them?

The President is Commander and Chief of all the US armed forces.

As for the Air Force, they report up to the Sec. of the Air Force who reports to the Sec. of Defense, who reports to the President of the United States.

 

[b_justb]

I served in the Army for 7 years. I am not in now. I still consider myself kin to the military. Therefore, the POTUS is MY Commander in Chief, even if he isn’t in my political ideological sphere (any POTUS not just this POTUS).

 

[gilliam]

b_justb:

I served in the Army for 7 years. I am not in now. I still consider myself kin to the military. Therefore, the POTUS is MY Commander in Chief, even if he isn’t in my political ideological sphere (any POTUS not just this POTUS).

Huah!

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Karin:

Well he does have a point…as nobody in my family is in the military he is not “our commander in chief”…he is just the President to us (nothing more or less)

He can still draft members of your family and send them to war, if they are of age.

And why play semantics? Call him “your Lordship” if you want, it doesn’t change his legal authority.

This is what petulant liberals have resorted to nowadays. Arguing titles against men they cannot defeat or accept. Pathetic.

 

[Karin]

HappyCatholic01:

He can still draft members of your family and send them to war, if they are of age…

Yes I am sure that he could…but really what is the likely hood of that occuring?

HappyCatholic01:

And why play semantics? Call him “your Lordship” if you want, it doesn’t change his legal authority…

Nah…his lordship is not a title that is suitable to him.
President works quite well…thank you though for the suggestion

 

[Libero]

This is just another one of those “anybody but Bush” people who seems to have a pathological hatred of W. Wonder why he doesn’t emigrate to someplace like North Korea? He certainly wouldn’t have to put up with Bush there, would he?

He shouldn’t have to.

I believe that Bush has the title “His Excellency” snort*

(That one is reserved only for bishops from me)

 

[b_justb]

HappyCatholic01:

He can still draft members of your family and send them to war, if they are of age.

There is no conscription in the USA. Recently, however, a member of Congress, who is a Democrat, tried to introduce legislation to bring it back as a political stunt to say the Bush administration was bringing back the draft. It was thoroughly trounced in an open house vote.

 

[seabird3579]

Not to beat a dead horse but, the President (Executive), the Congress (Legislative) and the Supreme Court (Judicial) branches of government are Co-Equals. Neither of them can tell the other what to do or what not to do. They have equal authority, but all must submit to the U.S. Constitution.

The “Commander-in-Chief” title applies Only to Active Duty personnel and Never to the ordinary citizen. In fact, ordinary citizens have not only the right, but the duty, to civilly disobey an Unconstitutional decision or “law.”

Though, I’m not completely sold on the Constitution Party, they do have a website which offers a short Course (on CD) explaining the U.S. Constitution pretty thoroughly – and its not revisonist history…

 

[Al_Masetti]

Sir Knight:

So who is in charge of the Air Force?

The Marines are a branch of the Navy but the Air Force is now a seperate entity from the Army. Who’s in charge of them?

Sometimes, the Air Force does act somewhat … as if … it is independent…

• Al

P.S. Did you all read Ralph Peters’ article in today’s NY Post? I’ll try to find the URL Hint: he has harsh things to say about the Air Force. ]

Try this:

nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61258.htm

 

[gilliam]

seabird3579:

Not to beat a dead horse but, the President (Executive), the Congress (Legislative) and the Supreme Court (Judicial) branches of government are Co-Equals. Neither of them can tell the other what to do or what not to do. They have equal authority, but all must submit to the U.S. Constitution.

This is not true. The President (Executive) must enforce the laws the Congress passes and can only spend the money the Congress appropriates. That sure doesn’t sound co-equal to me

The “Commander-in-Chief” title applies Only to Active Duty personnel and Never to the ordinary citizen. In fact, ordinary citizens have not only the right, but the duty, to civilly disobey an Unconstitutional decision or “law.”

No they don’t. The interpreters of what is or is not constitutional is the Judicial branch (not the individual citizen) Until the courts decide a law is unconstitutional, it is assumed to be constitutional and everyone (you and I included) in the country must obey it or face whatever penalty is associated with that law.

Though, I’m not completely sold on the Constitution Party, they do have a website which offers a short Course (on CD) explaining the U.S. Constitution pretty thoroughly – and its not revisonist history…

If they teach what you said above, I would avoid it. Instead, I would recommend people actually read the Constitution of the United States of America.