Not My Commander in Chief

[kpete]

Not My Commander in Chief
by Crashing Vor
Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:08:03 PM PDT

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution begins:

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

This is a very specific delineation. When broad powers are claimed for the President, many rightly so, in his role as "commander-in-chief," these broad powers do not automatically apply to those persons not in the armed forces of the United States. Where they exist at all, they apply to the men and women of the uniformed services of the Army and Navy, the state Guards and other armed services.

.....................

In point of fact, the president of the United States cannot do a damned thing to me that the Constitution does not specifically allow him to do. And this limitation to his powers, embodied in the purposefully broad Tenth Amendment, holds because I am not a member of the armed forces.

In short, the president is not my commander-in-chief. Odds are, he is not yours, either. He is not Antonin Scalia's commander in chief, not Hillary Clinton's nor Chris Matthews'.

For us, the citizens of and visitors to the United States, he is the Chief Executive, pledged to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. He is not our commander. He is our servant.

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/13/083/19438/930/535023

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. He's not even the Chief Executive since he was never elected.

[lonestarnot]

9. He's not even the Chief as Barney pissed his leg after he dropped him on his head.

[panader0]

2. He's a pretty shitty servant

I'm going have to let him go.

[ThatsMyBarack]

3. Well put!

:kick: & R

[kentuck]

4. The phrase that always confuses me is :

"when called into the actual Service of the United States". What does that mean? He is not their CiC when they are not called into "Service"? It must be an important phrase, since it follows a comma? What does it mean?

[Recursion]

7. All able-bodied males between 17 and 45...

...are in the militia. If the militia (ie, us) is ever called up, the President is our commander-in-chief. To the extent that there is an agreement across the political spectrum about the chief purpose of the 2nd Amendment, it was written so that when the militia was called up, the states and/or federal government would not have to pay for their weapons.

[StatGirl]

15. The National Guard . . .

. . . is normally commanded by the governor of their particular state. They have to be called into federal service to report to the president.

[eallen]

5. Most importantly, Congress specifically has the power to regulate that.

In Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power .. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.

Bush's notion of the "unitary executive" is bogus.

[jgraz]

6. Exactly. I really like the fact that Obama carefully makes this distinction

He always says "when I'm commander-in-chief of the armed forces...".

Bush has not the first clue how this government works. What a disgrace.

[Beausoleil]

8. And McLame, who should know better

states that he is running for the "office" of commander-in-chief.

That should disqualify him right there.

[jgraz]

11. McSame doesn't know shit. They guy is a moron.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Been Saying The Same Thing For Years

I'm not in the military. He's not my commander in chief.
The Professor

[Summer93]

12. The Trick is

I believe and I may be wrong here, the trick is only when Congress has voted to go to war does the militia get called up then the "president" can lead them as commander in chief.

Funny how this brings an image of a little boy marching around his bedroom and addressing his toy soldiers.

[eridani]

13. Don't use the word ever, unless in this very specific way

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2008/03/17/ask-rockridge-we-need-a-president-not-just-a-commander-in-chief

Though the words themselves are neutral, they have been used within a right-wing frame that is not obvious. The frame includes the following:

--The overriding challenge facing our country is military in nature.
--The military role of the president is therefore far more important than all of the other jobs he or she performs.
--Military experience, or direct experience with military affairs (e.g., the Armed Services Committee) is the single most important experience needed for the presidency.
--The country should be governed on a military basis. The state should first and foremost be a security state.
--The temperament needed for a president is martial; the president should be a fighter and should be engaged in fighting.
--The governing style for a president should be giving orders and making sure they are carried out. Others in public service should be obedient to the president’s orders.

That is what it means to make the “commander-in-chief” question the main issue in a campaign. The commander-in-chief frame shifts the role of the president away from governing our nation and into the more limited scope of managing military affairs. It takes us away from domestic questions, including other questions of protection and leadership.

That frame is not what America is about. It does not embody fundamental American values. Nor does it portray what the role of the government is in our democracy. The dual roles of government are protection and empowerment, as we have written elsewhere. Protection is not just military or police protection, but a wide range: consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, social security, protection from natural disasters and disease, and protection from economic devastation.

The kind of military chain of command and absolute authority in wartime does not apply to most functions of the president. The president is not supposed to be commander-in-chief of Congress, nor commander-in-chief of the FBI or the Justice Department, nor commander-in-chief of the American people. Right now he isn't even Commander-in-Chief of Blackwater, a private army.


http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/public-servant-v-military-commander.html

[ginnyinWI]

14. Amen. k+r nt