Tuesday, March 20, 2012

U.S. President NOT Commander in Chief Until Congress Calls Him?

Everyone assumes as soon as a new U.S. president is sworn into office that they automatically become Commander in Chief of all of America’s . This is NOT true according to the .

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States says,

“The 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.”

The key phrase in this is “when called into actual Service of the United States.” So the question then lies in what does it mean “when called into Service?” To get our answer, we must look to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States which states,

“The shall have Power…

To declare War…

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;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”

As I read the Constitution, Congress has the authority over the military and only Congress can declare . That also means that Congress is the body of government that calls the president to become Commander in Chief. Until that time comes, the president has no vital role in the military and its use.

More @ Godfather Politics

Posted by at

11 comments:

  1. Cry, Beloved CountryMarch 20, 2012 at 3:29 PM

    I'm afraid Giacomo is off here in his reading of Art. 2, Sect. 2. Yes, "[t]he Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War," not the President. He's spot on there, of course.

    But the phrase he highlights in Art. 2, Sect. 2--"when called into the actual Service of the United States"--modifies what immediately precedes it: "the Militia of the several States." In other words, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" *and* he shall be C-in-C of the Militias *when they're federalized* but *not* when they're in the service of their individual states.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brock TownsendMarch 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM

    Thanks, my smart girl!:)

    I've been tempted to join the fray in your latest, but so far have beaten the temptation as I would surely go off in a rant about Homeschooling!:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cry, Beloved CountryMarch 20, 2012 at 6:24 PM

      I will finish my 25th consecutive year of homeschooling in June. I did have to bite my tongue when the teacher sarcastically suggested to the mom that she homeschool her child(ren), but otherwise I've been doing pretty well, I think!

      Delete
    2. Brock TownsendMarch 20, 2012 at 6:49 PM

      As you know, I believe, I homeschool my fifth girl Dixie.

      Delete
    3. Cry, Beloved CountryMarch 20, 2012 at 6:52 PM

      I try not to show too much of my hand most of the time for tactical reasons. But if you are inclined to go off on a rant about homeschooling, I will be most happy to aid and abet you. Come on in--the water's fine!

      Delete
    4. Cry, Beloved CountryMarch 20, 2012 at 6:54 PM

      Yes, I just picked up on that just the other day with the email from Seton Academy.

      Delete
    5. Brock TownsendMarch 20, 2012 at 6:59 PM

      That's right.

      We started out with the Robinson Curriculum, but this year are into current events most of the time.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousMarch 20, 2012 at 6:14 PM

    That comma certainly puts a stink on that, doesn't it?

    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 all 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.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.     - The Federalist Papers : No. 69

    Curtis

    ReplyDelete
  4. RolloryMarch 21, 2012 at 12:19 PM

    The problem with arguments like this is that nobody cares what the Constitution actually says anymore, certainly not enough to enforce it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brock TownsendMarch 21, 2012 at 12:59 PM

    Damn if that ain't the truth.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)