Posted on 12/19/2007 5:34:25 AM PST by 50mm
Uh, yes I do... Try here.
To bad you have nothing worthwhile with which to back it up except a blind belief in RuPaul. But that’s typical.
I don't know much at all about RuPaul except that I understand he's some gender-confused freak.
I'm sad to learn of this news. Was it because of something on this thread?
He said he believes that OBL was “largely” responsible for 9/11 and seemed to follow it up by saying that the other responsible parties were other Islamofascists, and I’m okay with that explanation.
A very honest and honorable reply, showing that you read what was actually written by taxed2death, rather than just knee-jerk attack and mischaracterize like some might have done.
Because there are more there still to kill? This is self evident.
We aren't doing it as effectively as we could be. But half a loaf is better than no bread...
Didn’t know he was banned. Some roads you just shouldn’t go down.
Thanks but no thanks. You don't interest me in the least.
That figures.
Where exactly is this authority granted under the Constitution?
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states:
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....
Article I, Section 8 of the constitution states that Congress shall have the power to:
..declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
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;
and To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
However, the War Powers Act of 1973, (the purpose of which is stated to be: "...to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."), clearly states in Section III that:
"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."
No where is the authority granted specifically to the President to, (as you say), "deploy troops anywhere outside the United States he desires for any reason." Nor does he "have complete authority over US armed forces in both wartime and peacetime."
If I remember correctly the War Powers Act was Congress’ response to avoid another “Viet Nam” scenario. It was supposed to limit the power of any President who deployed troops in an open-ended engagement without a declaration of war by Congress. Nixon vetoed the bill but Congress overrode it. No one to my knowledge has ever brought up the constitutionality of the War Powers Act before the Supreme Court.
I've been around here long enough to realize that what we type might not always come across the way we intended it (that's the big drawback to the internet as opposed to face-to-face discussion), he clarified the statement in a way that made sense and if you read through the thread, I dropped the issue after that.
Of course it is.
He is specifically and explicitly made Commander In Chief of America's military forces.
Not "Commander In Part" or "Commander To A Certain Extent."
The law requires him to update Congress on his decisions and discuss his decisions with them (which he should obviously be doing anyway) and requires him to rely on Congress to fund the military budget, but as Commander In Chief he has full discretion to send our military forces anywhere in the world for any purpose that national security requires according to his lights.
Unless the word "Commander" has some secret meaning known only to Paulestinians to which lesser beings are not privy.
Actually, it seems that the Paul supporters/deaconblues have it right. The legislature has the "What" power, while the Executive branch handles the "How" implementation. Congress declares War, and President implements it.
The Commander of a battalion has no power to just go running off with it to do whatever he wants, and neither does the POTUS have the power to do whatever he wants with the entire military.
The Congress has power to fund the military and it has the power to formally declare a state of war between the United States and another sovereign state or states.
As others have pointed out, President Thomas Jefferson - who I assume was conversant with the Constitution - sent US forces into battle against the Pasha of Tripoli without any Congressional declaration of war.
Terrible analogy. The lieutenant colonel commanding a battalion is directly responsible to the colonel of his regiment. Even his title betrays the fact that he acts as a representative of the colonel and not on his own authority.
That's the chain of command.
The President of the United States is at the apex of the chain of command. He has no military superior like the lieutenant colonel of a battalion does.
He possesses plenary authority over the US armed forces, and can only be cashiered by impeachment.
The Congress has no authority to tell him what to do, just as he has no authority to order Congress to fund the military.
The Constitution was structured this way for a reason: one man has full military authority, enabling the US to act quickly and flexibly in situations that require military action, without the quibbling and delays that legislative debates engender.
The Congress checks him by denying him the funds he needs to supply the armed forces, not by telling him how or when to do his job.
You’re right. I had forgotten that the Presidency, where we used to have a President who “presides,” has become an office held by an Emperor, who has to answer to nobody.
Good point.
The Executive has his own sphere of authority which is his to exercise at his discretion.
The checks on his authority are threefold: he can be cashiered for malfeasance through impeachment, his time in office is strictly limited, and he needs access to funds which only Congress can provide.
Exercising plenary executive authority makes him the executive, not an emperor.
An emperor, to resolve your confusion, has complete executive, legislative and judicial power.
The Constitution of the United States deliberately and by design gives the US President broad powers and discretion because the Framers - as discussed at great length in the Federalist - were fearful of legislative tyranny and tried to find ways to make the Presidency as strong as possible to forestall that danger.
My points of contention were with your earlier statements that the President "is entitled to deploy troops anywhere outside the United States he desires for any reason" and that he has "complete authority".
Hamilton stated in the Federalist No. 69: "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
It is my interpretation that the framers fully intended the President to have full control over the Command of the military, but specifically denied him the power to commit troops to war without a Congressional declaration. Further, it is my understanding that the War Powers Act of 1973, (the Constitutionality of which is still open for debate), clarified Presidential responsibilities when he chooses to place troops in harm's way, without a formal declaration of war.
Regards.
deaconblues responded well to the points.
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.