It does not say "only Commander in Chief once Congress declares war." It says that he's the Commander in Chief, and there's no qualification as to when. That means always. But Congress can and should declare war, yes. And where it says "when called into the actual service of the United States," that pertains to the militia (National Guard), not the President. The President is always in service and always the Commander in Chief of the military.Heeelllooo??? Anybody in there? If you also notice the time that the military may be called up is for two years and the assumption held by the Founders is that we wouldn't need a standing military. Granted, in today's Wilsonian foreign policy era of sticking our noses into anything and everything (to heck with whether these US are being attacked or not apparently), we need not only a standing military but one armed to the teeth as well. Given that however, Congress should still have the power over the military that it is granted under the Constitution. That means that while the President is CIC, that doesn't mean he can order them all over the world at what he feels may be a threat in 10-20 years.
You throw up Article II, Sec 2 as if that's a pass to do anything he feels is in the best interests of these US at the time and that it is somehow exclusive of the rest of the Constitution. Heck, why have checks and balances at all? Let's just do as Hamilton wanted (and suggested in Constitutional Convention) and have a limited monarchy. As for your statement
But Congress can and should declare war, yes. And where it says "when called into the actual service of the United States," that pertains to the militia (National Guard), not the President.
grammatically you know yourself that's not true. If it were the statement would read
'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;" (comma missing)
as that the last statement would
only be applying to the militia
It's not about "fine print." It's more about common sense (i.e., not having to wait for Congress to defend us) and reading the English carefully, word for word.
I suggest you brush up on your English a little more carefully because you missed an important grammatical mark that changes the entire intent of the statement
Right now, several other countries are developing madness against us among their peoples and trying to acquire and build nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying us. We shouldn't wait until nuclear conflict is the only answer. That's why we're going over there now.
Ah, preemptive strikes is it? And as a Christian I am concerned about the peoples of the nations that are being oppressed. But listen real carefully now. Contrary to what you, Mr. Frum, William Buckley, and Bill Kristol think, there is no 'responsibility for the rest of the world' clause in the Constitution. If we, as a nation of separate and sovereign states, would quit sticking our noses into every conflict where we're trying to 'help spread democracy' only to establish a tinpot dictator that 30 years later comes back worse than the first, perhaps the world might be a tad bit safer. Heck, I don't know. But I do know that for over 90 years we've tried Wilson's ideals and they've only gotten this nation of states into worse and worse jams. Maybe we should try following the Constitution and see how that works.
As it is now, it's a moot point, the troops are over there, and I wish them a quick success. However as I have said, get in, get out, and let the nation worry about rebuilding itself
"Heeelllooo??? Anybody in there? If you also notice the time that the military may be called up is for two years..."
Are you referring to the following?
Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have power ... To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"
I'm sure Congress will use the current appropriations within a couple of years and appropriate more when needed.
"...and the assumption held by the Founders is that we wouldn't need a standing military."
...not true of all the founders. They settled on a standing army, and a few things about militias were entered to get the paranoid to shut up. See above.
"I suggest you brush up on your English a little more carefully because you missed an important grammatical mark that changes the entire intent of the statement"
Are you referring to the following?
Article II Section 2. [Excerpt of Pertinencies] 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 offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
So you stumbled on the "comma controversy." Lefty's trying to defeat the 2nd Amendment with that argument, too, but there's a pattern of comma use like that throughout the Constitution. Language changes.
And if you had been correct about that, you would have made a point in favor of my arguments, anyway, because the President is called into service when he's elected.
"Ah, preemptive strikes is it? And as a Christian I am concerned about the peoples of the nations that are being oppressed. But listen real carefully now. Contrary to what you, Mr. Frum, William Buckley, and Bill Kristol think, there is no 'responsibility for the rest of the world' clause in the Constitution. If we, as a nation of separate and sovereign states, would quit sticking our noses into every conflict where we're trying to 'help spread democracy' only to establish a tinpot dictator that 30 years later comes back worse than the first, perhaps the world might be a tad bit safer. Heck, I don't know. But I do know that for over 90 years we've tried Wilson's ideals and they've only gotten this nation of states into worse and worse jams. Maybe we should try following the Constitution and see how that works.
Actually, until recently, we supported monarchies and other dictatorships with a doctrine against overthrowing other governments, regardless of how rotten their leaders were. Now we go after other governments that hate us and point weapons at us.
I, personally, would like to mind our own business, stay out of other countries, build a huge umbrella defense, and if any real threat comes our way,
But I won't get my way. ...will have to settle for what most of the rest of our people and our leaders are willing to do.
As it is now, it's a moot point, the troops are over there, and I wish them a quick success. However as I have said, get in, get out, and let the nation worry about rebuilding itself
Ah, you know how it goes. We'll spend, spend, spend and work our tails off to get 'em back on their feet. Some interesting things might be coming out soon, though. ...some surprises on the way, I think.