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

[Pastor Larry]

Those of us who support defending the U.S. constitution and our military personnel would not lose to those who think that the president should be a dictator and who have little regard for the welfare of our 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.

 

[KenH]

Larry, please read Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. constitution and see if your argument has a leg to stand on. I will go ahead and tell you - it doesn't.

 

[hillclimber1]

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

 

[KenH]

The liberals are gutless. If libertarians were the majority in the Congress then I feel confident that this issue would be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, please read Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. constitution and see if your argument has a leg to stand on. I will go ahead and tell you - it doesn't.

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.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Baloney. The president is not a dictator, not even during a time of war.

The Congress is the legislative branch. The legislative branch sets policy.

The presidency is the executive branch. The executive branch executes the policy that the legislative branch passes into law.

Cheif Justice Joseph Story disagrees with you.

 

[carpro]

Larry, please read Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. constitution and see if your argument has a leg to stand on. I will go ahead and tell you - it doesn't.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

 

[KenH]

www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin33.htm

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

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

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

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.

 

[KenH]

"command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns"

I agree.

Passing a law regarding how much down time that our troops receive does not interfere with either of those categories. Rather, it is a pro-family position that all Christians should support.

 

[carpro]

"command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns"

I agree.

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".

 

[Pastor Larry]

Passing a law regarding how much down time that our troops receive does not interfere with either of those categories.

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?

Rather, it is a pro-family position that all Christians should support.

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.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

 

[KenH]

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?

Then the solution would be to expand the size of the military. There should be a large supply of young Republicans who are biting at the bit to go fight in Iraq to back up their support for President Bush's Iraq policy.

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.

It is time for the Iraqis to handle that.

 

[carpro]

Then the solution would be to expand the size of the military.

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.

 

[KenH]

Then the Congress should do so and specify that everyone who continues to support Bush's Iraq policy between the ages of 18 and 26 has to join. That should wake a few young warhawking Republicans up that otherwise wouldn't go near the military.

 

[carpro]

Then the Congress should do so and specify that everyone who continues to support Bush's Iraq policy between the ages of 18 and 26 has to join.

No such requirement would be Constitutional.