U.S. Senate Fails to Support U.S. Military Personnel

The Constitution says that when the military is called into "actual service" they are under the direction of the Commander in Chief. why do you disagree with the Constitution, and then pretend to be a constitutionalists?

I quote the constitution and you reject. You reject the historical precedent. i am not even sure you know what the constitution actually says, apart from a few phrases you can quote here and there.

To accuse the President of having little regard for the welfare of our troops is absurd. You know it. You should be above such petty personal attacks. But you're not. And that's too bad.

 

Ken, if your wishful thinking were true, you liberals would be all over it.

 

I did read it and it does not contradict Art 2 which I cited as referring to "actual service." It seems so simple Ken. When in "actual service" the President is in charge. At other times, Congress can make rules about certain things.

Why do you think those against the war have not yet tried this tactic of yours? Because they know it won't work in the courts.

 

Cheif Justice Joseph Story disagrees with you.

 

Article I, Section 8 is generally considered to be administrative in nature.

The distribution of troops in wartime, including their rotation schedules , is either tactical or logistical, the province of our armed forces, not Congress.

I believe Congress is barking up the wrong tree and I suspect they know it. Their votes on this issue are primarliy another effort at pandering to their base.

 

Carpro's understanding is the same as mine. Of course, we could be wrong, and i would be interested in any court cases or legal opinions about the matter. So far Ken has offered nothing but his own opinion, I think, and hasn't yet explained how Art 2 fits into his view.

 

Article II of the Constitution designates the President as “Commander in Chief.” But even without the Commander-in-Chief clause, the President would still be the chief of the armed forces because the President is vested with a general “executive power.” So what is the purpose of designating him as “Commander in Chief”? The most sensible textual inference is to read the Commander-in-Chief clause as a constitutional constraint on the other two federal branches, especially Congress, from interfering with the President’s command of U.S. military forces.
Courts have generally endorsed this understanding. In Ex Parte Milligan, a Civil War-era decision that limited the President’s power to use military commissions in peacetime, Chief Justice Chase nonetheless reiterated that Congress “cannot intrude . . . upon the proper authority of the President” in the exercise of his military authority. Congress could not, for instance, “interfere[] with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns.”

http://yalelawjournal.org/2006/03/ku.html

 

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0071_0002_ZX.html


Congress has the power not only to raise and support and govern armies, but to declare war. It has therefore the power to provide by law for carrying on war. This power necessarily extends to all legislation essential to the prosecution of war with vigor and success except such as interferes with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns. That power and duty belong to the President as commander-in-chief. Both these powers are derived from the Constitution, but neither is defined by that instrument. Their extent must be determined by their nature and by the principles of our institutions.

 

Good.

Then it shouldn't be too difficult to understand that fiddling with troop rotation schedules will definitely affect whatever "campaign" or operation is being conducted in Iraq.

The really sad part would be how many soldiers are killed retaking control of a region that was left abandoned by congressionally mandated troop rotations.

Keeping that scenario from happening would truly be considered "pro family".

 

So how does requiring that a soldier be home for a year not interfere with carrying on a campaign? What if the executive (President) wants to call on a unit to go on a campaign but cannot do so because it has only been home for six months? Isn't that interfering?

This is the argumentative fallacy of appeal to emotion. We could just as easily argue that pro-family Christians should be committed to stopping the destruction of families by terrorist attacks in Iraq and should thereefore send more troops and never give them rotational leaves.

 

This attempt at a one year troop rotation is not what it is being set up as. what it really is is a back door attmept to control bringing home the troops all together. It is a lie being perpetrated to conceal the real intention.

 

I think it may have the intent of so limiting troop availability so as to make continuance impossible.

It is interesting, yet again, that those who say we have too few troops there to do the job want to further limit the number available.

It is politics, pure and simple.

 

That is within the purvue of Congress' Constitutional responsibilities, but they only do it when requested by the armed forces.

They don't have to wait till asked.

 

No such requirement would be Constitutional.