Replies

Could you ping me, too? I've seen this issue debated around here quite a bit lately, but I have yet to see anyone really nail it down. It's amazing how quiet the Constitution is on some really important stuff -- sometimes its brevity and sketchiness seem almost haiku-like to me. I suppose this is a good thing, though, when you've good people in Washington to flesh it out.

Anyway, I'm curious to see what the Federalist Papers say.

Thanks!

This is Alexander Hamilton writing in Federalist 69:

In most of these particulars the power of the President will resemble equally that of the King of Great-Britain and the Governor of New-York. The most material points of difference are these--First; the President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation, as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The King of Great-Britain and the Governor of New-York have at all times the entire command of the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article therefore the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the Monarch or the Governor. Secondly; 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.

The role of the President as Commander in Chief is to simply direct the armed forces after they have been called to action by the Congress of the United States. You are correct in the fact that the language in the Constitution is vague but I believe this to be the original intent.