Posted on 01/11/2020 7:09:38 AM PST by Kaslin
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misinterprets congressional responsibilities about war and peace. In challenging President Donald Trump’s bold order to kill the world’s number one terrorist, Iran’s Qassem Soleimani, Speaker Pelosi misfires on Congress’ foreign policy and military responsibilities.
Congress is mandated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution “To declare war...make rules concerning captures on land and water.” It is authorized “to raise and support armies…” It also is authorized “to provide and maintain a Navy” and “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; it can “provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Lastly, Article 1, Section 8 authorizes Congress “to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (National Guard) and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States…”
That’s a lot. Yes, Congress has deep and exclusive mandates on military organization, funding and some management of U.S. military forces. What it does not have is the ability to use military forces. Only the President can use them; he does so as Commander in Chief. He (or she) does not generally need Congressional permission to use the military. In fact, Congress has prohibited some uses; e.g. laws that prohibit the use of the federal military to enforce civilian laws. It also prohibited sending draftees outside the Western Hemisphere in 1940.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
who in Congress has worked to
“suppress insurrection” and SEDITION
of the previous administration?
> “to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (National Guard)...” <
It’s a side point, but I object to the author’s insertion of his opinion into the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 does not use the term “National Guard”. It is both wrong and dangerous to equate the National Guard with the militia.
The Guard is a state force. The militia consists of all able-bodied people.
The Constitution is quite clear: Congress holds the purse while the President holds the sword.
While only Congress can declare war the President is the Commander in Chief of all US Armed Forces. He does not need congressional approval to act in America’s immediate defence. (Just imagine if he did!)
There is no act or resolution they can make that will change that; It would require nothing less than a new Amendment.
Of course, Congress can refuse to fund any war or large scale military action and if they really disagree with his actions they can always impeach him.
Let’s see how that goes!
Congress can make war through declaration. It just takes a month or so. That is why the elected president is also command in chief of all active military units. He is a civilian, btw... just one in command of a vast force.
Things happen fast in the real world. We need a normal human with permissible immediate decision and action authority. The Romas learned this lesson two thousand years ago.
Trump set weapons free a while back... and deferred decision of smaller issues to regional command. That is how they took out that spook.
As it should be.
Iran is lucky they still have a navy and airforce this day. This could change tomorrow. Who knows...? Not iran. Not us.
As it should be.
You are correct. The militia mus provide their own guns and supplies. Furthermore, the guns must be military caliber and capability.
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.
Exactly. Congress picks and chooses what part of the constitution it wants to use.
“The Guard is a state force. The militia consists of all able-bodied people.”
True, but the NG can also be “co-opted” (federalized) by the CINC for overseas missions where cost and control falls to the Feds. If it was left totally up to the States to fund/support them, they would not be the organizations they have become.
The militia - consisting of “all able-bodied people” has a lot less direct control avenues - which makes them a viable deterrent to the government.
Yeah. ..the author is a dumbass progressive twit.
“It is both wrong and dangerous to equate the National Guard with the militia”
Exactly. And part of the 100 year long effort to centralize the military into a standing army, the very thing we fought against in the Revolution.
Militia districts used to be a significant organizing feature of the States - typically subdivisions of Counties.
Officers were ELECTED - imagine that: civilian control of the power to make war, not abstracted to the denizens of the Federal Reservation known as “Washington”.
Contreras misses the essential nature of the relationship between the People and their self defense forces by assuming the Federal military is the only one that ever existed.
Excellent. Well stated.
My sister researched what our ancestor (fifth great grandfather, if my memory’s correct) did in a militia unit (Evan Cesna’s Mountain Rangers in Pennsylvania) during the Revolutionary War. They were notified by a Contennintal Army contact when the militia was needed because they had intimate knowledge of the local geography and the Brits didn’t. The militia knew what route the Brits would have to take and would station themselves, in small groups, along that route. The group’s best marksman would climb a tree and the rest would reload and hand the guns up and down. The marksman would shoot the officers, easily distinguishable (and better targets) because they were on horseback. The infantry went back where they came from.
So, if Congress declares a war (outside of our territories), the President could (at risk of impeachment) refuse to engage the military?
Misinterprets = Make Things Up
YUP!
Thumbs up! ...That’s what I was about to post. Glad I decided to read the thread comments first.
bump
Your absolutely correct. Replacing militia with national guard changes the whole meaning.
The Guard is a state force.
*******
A ‘state force’ whos funding, training, equipping and recruiting is all federal.
“The National Guard” was a gimmick used to increase Army Reserves beyond the strength caps set by congress back in the day. The “control of the state governor” was just a fig leaf tacked on to buy the necessary permissions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.