(IF) You could pick anyone to be President

[Toby Bradshaw]

"When called into the actual Service of the United States"______

This phrase refers only to the militias, which are controlled by the states except when called into national service by the POTUS. The POTUS is always the CIC of the Army and Navy (and now Air Force and Marines).

Only the United States Congress has that authority.

Congress has the authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8), but Congress doesn't get to decide who is the Commander-in-Chief. And since Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII, it's pretty clear that the POTUS can conduct war without such a declaration, and can keep a war going as long as the Congress will appropriate the money needed.

What you wrote above is actually correct, but only in time of conflict.

The POTUS can send the military anywhere, anytime, to do anything, without consulting Congress. That's what "Commander in Chief" means.

Since the War Powers Act passed Congress (overriding Nixon's veto) in 1973, the POTUS is supposed to notify Congress within 2 days of deploying the military, and after 60 days is supposed to get authorization to continue. But since Congress has no ability to enforce the Act, except to impeach the President or withhold funding, it hasn't had any real effect on the POTUS's exercise of the Commander-in-Chief role. A recent example: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html

It's all available to read in rather straightforward language. It's not that hard to understand. It's a shame there are those that don't understand the basics of how our government really works.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[TRA]

Mr Bradshaw, as long as you are going to cherry pick text to enhance your point of view, how about including what is actually law and not just assumptions and workarounds used by government lawyers that allow presidents to skirt the actual law.

I know the law is ignored and congress has not contested it, but that does not make it legal. Fact is the president is our only authorized CIC, and ONLY when our congress acts according to our laws and grants him those powers. What the POTUS gets away with is irrelevant to what our laws allow. Until the law is changed the CIC is at the discretion of the Congress, by law.

FWIW, the same place you got your supporting material also has the other side of this issue. Funding and impeachment are both rather serious tools to control an elected official with.

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

... how about including what is actually law and not just assumptions and workarounds used by government lawyers that allow presidents to skirt the actual law.

We know what the law says but not whether the War Powers Act is constitutional. "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison 1803

So far, the SCOTUS has declined to hear the War Powers Act cases brought to it, calling the disputes between the POTUS and Congress a political matter.

The "concurrent resolution" provision of the War Powers Act, which allegedly allows Congress to order the POTUS to withdraw troops after 60 (or 90) days, is on shaky ground after INS v. Chadha, which struck down the same sort of legislative veto of executive authority.

Nobody disputes that the POTUS, as Commander-in-Chief, can send the armed forces (including state militias) anywhere, anytime, without asking anyone for permission, which is all that really matters in a practical sense. In the chain of command for the US Armed Forces, the POTUS is at the top, and Congress isn't even on the org chart.

 

[Raythemanroe]

Laura Ingraham for Press Secretary

Ray

 

[Raythemanroe]

 

[DRNewcomb]

....Nobody disputes that the POTUS, as Commander-in-Chief, can send the armed forces (including state militias) anywhere, anytime, without asking anyone for permission, which is all that really matters in a practical sense. ......

I dispute it. Under the Constitution, the militia can only be called into Federal service for the defense of the United States or the execution of its laws. If you recall your history, the militia refused to cross into Canada to attack Quebec City during the War of 1812. Also in the Spanish American War, the militia declined to take part, which brought about the formation of the U.S. Volunteers. It was only after the passage of the Militia Act of 1903, when the states were coopted into declining their Constitutional militia rights, that the present President's Word is Law mindset took hold. Even then, it took the Cold War, with fingers constantly poised on the nuclear launch button, to make this a part of the national psyche.

 

[Intheshop]

Would have to say my wife?She's never wrong....just ask her.

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

... and yet

I dispute it. Under the Constitution, the militia can only be called into Federal service for the defense of the United States or the execution of its laws. If you recall your history, the militia refused to cross into Canada to attack Quebec City during the War of 1812. Also in the Spanish American War, the militia declined to take part, which brought about the formation of the U.S. Volunteers. It was only after the passage of the Militia Act of 1903, when the states were coopted into declining their Constitutional militia rights, that the present President's Word is Law mindset took hold. Even then, it took the Cold War, with fingers constantly poised on the nuclear launch button, to make this a part of the national psyche.

... and yet when ordered by the POTUS to fight Germany during WWI, the state National Guard units went and did just that.

 

[DRNewcomb]

... and yet
... and yet when ordered by the POTUS to fight Germany during WWI, the state National Guard units went and did just that.

As I said, "It was only after the passage of the Militia Act of 1903...." Do you understand what the Militia Act of 1903 did? It bought off the organized state militias by paying for arms, training, equipment, etc conditioned on two things: 1) The organized militia became the National Guard, which is actually a reserve component of the US Army and 2) the states could not protect their unorganized militias from being drafted into some overseas adventure, like Cuba. After 1903 the Constitutional state militias effectively ceased to exist. I've often wondered what would happen if just one state drew a line and said, "You know, that was a mistake. We're taking our militia rights back." Of course, that's the Libertarian in me talking.

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

As I said, "It was only after the passage of the Militia Act of 1903...." Do you understand what the Militia Act of 1903 did? It bought off the organized state militias by paying for arms, training, equipment, etc conditioned on two things: 1) The organized militia became the National Guard, which is actually a reserve component of the US Army and 2) the states could not protect their unorganized militias from being drafted into some overseas adventure, like Cuba. After 1903 the Constitutional state militias effectively ceased to exist. I've often wondered what would happen if just one state drew a line and said, "You know, that was a mistake. We're taking our militia rights back." Of course, that's the Libertarian in me talking.

As I recall, several states did try to draw the line. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard in defiance of the Governor to integrate a high school in Little Rock, Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to remove the Governor from his blockade of the University of Alabama, Reagan deployed the Massachusetts National Guard for overseas training despite the Governor's objection, ...

See the SCOTUS ruling in Perpich v. DoD.

 

[DRNewcomb]

As I recall, several states did try to draw the line. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard in defiance of the Governor to integrate a high school in Little Rock, Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to remove the Governor from his blockade of the University of Alabama, Reagan deployed the Massachusetts National Guard for overseas training despite the Governor's objection, ...

See the SCOTUS ruling in Perpich v. DoD.

All of which flows from the states' abrogating their rights by accepting payment from the Federal government under the Militia Act of 1903. If National Guard members "take the King's penny" they're on the hook and go when and where called. This was pretty much the beginning of the Federal govt. coopting the states to do things that were not constitutional for the Feds to do on their own. Essentially, a state would have to return all their Federally owned military equipment and turn the National Guard over to the Army Reserve to free themselves from this trap.

 

[Toby Bradshaw]

All of which flows from the states' abrogating their rights by accepting payment from the Federal government under the Militia Act of 1903. If National Guard members "take the King's penny" they're on the hook and go when and where called. This was pretty much the beginning of the Federal govt. coopting the states to do things that were not constitutional for the Feds to do on their own. Essentially, a state would have to return all their Federally owned military equipment and turn the National Guard over to the Army Reserve to free themselves from this trap.

So, as a practical (and legal) matter, the President, who is Commander-in-Chief, can send the Armed Forces (including state units of the National Guard) anywhere, anytime, without getting permission from anyone. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

 

[DRNewcomb]

So, as a practical (and legal) matter, the President, who is Commander-in-Chief, can send the Armed Forces (including state units of the National Guard) anywhere, anytime, without getting permission from anyone. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

Only because of the status quo, not the Constitution. When you look at someone in National Guard uniform, what does it say over their left pockets? "State Militia"? No. It says "US Army". The fiction that the National Guard is the militia is precisely that, a fiction. They are actually a component of the US Army (or Air Force) and the President gets to say what the Army does. The President's discretion as to where he can send the Army without approval of Congress is also based entirely on legislation, not the Constitution. The power to make war is not the President's, it belongs to Congress. The problem is that Congress has cut the President enough slack that he can do just about anything he pleases. So, the situation which has developed is one that is very contrary to what the Constitution details: the militia at the President's beck and call, a national (rather than state) draft and the President able to stir up wars on a whim, without getting permission from Congress. The average Swiss citizen might not be able to tell you the name of their President (it's currently Johann Schneider-Ammann), the position is just that unimportant. Wouldn't it be nice if we stopped having a King and went back to government as the founders envisioned it?

 

[spclark]

Maybe not anyone, but with things as they are after the Election there's still an act or two yet to take the stage:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/23/six-rebel-electors-plot-block-donald-trump-undermining-electoral

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ectoral-popular-votes-trump-clinton/94214826/

A December 'surprise' for Christmas?

We'll see....

 

[coorslight]

Anyone with a Military background and common sense.

 

[Jammer Six]

When you look at someone in National Guard uniform, what does it say over their left pockets? "State Militia"? No. It says "US Army".

By that logic, the Marines are part of the navy because they don't have their own Secretary.

 

[DRNewcomb]

By that logic, the Marines are part of the navy because they don't have their own Secretary.

Don't look now but Marines are part of the Navy, they may not admit it to themselves but they are. However, your argument is a red herring. I'm talking about the legal organization of the National Guard. Every single member must also be enlisted as a reserve member of the Army (or Air Force). The Constitutional ramifications are immense and most people are completely oblivious to the fact.