Why don't YOU read the Constitution. Pay close attention to Article I Section 8....
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Then you can progress onto Article II Section 2. Pay attention here
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
So, Congress can fund the military, maintain the military, and provide rules for the military. The PRESIDENT is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Then grab a dictionary.
com·mand·er /kəˈmændər, -ˈmɑn-/ Show Spelled[kuh-man-der, -mahn-] Show IPA –noun
1.a person who commands.
2.a person who exercises authority; chief officer; leader.
What does it mean to exercise authority? Would you be in Control if you exercised your authority?
Well what does it say about "commander in chief?"
commander in chief –noun,pluralcommanders in chief.
1.Also, Commander in Chief. the supreme commander of the armed forces of a nation or, sometimes, of several allied nations: The president is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force.
2.an officer in command of a particular portion of an armed force who has been given this title by specific authorization
So, in todays lesson we have learned that YES, The POTUS is in fact in control of the military. He is the sole appointed head of the military. Congress can create rules and regulations. However, the President is in CONTROL of the military. As I stated.
If the President was NOT in Control, than Congress, or it's delegate, would have been named CIC.
Then there is that whole enlistment oath
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Not seeing where the oath dictates Congress has control. It does however, say that the swearer will obey the orders of the President.
Further, legislatures legislate..... executors execute. One writes, the other carries out. The one that carries out has the control in the manner they are carried out.
The governing and regulating of the military is the province of the US Congress. And we haven't even mentioned the power of the purse.
Since my point is that the Congress can demand an investigation of the Ft Hood shooter whether the president agrees or not, then you have to ask yourself what about this case applies to "when called into the service of the United States."
It was on our soil, and there were no enemy maneuvering armies that Hassan was avoiding.
Our Senators are perfectly, and Constitutionally in the right in demanding and even setting up and investigation to which members of the military MUST comply or be held in contempt of Congress.