- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Ahem...I don't recall the Democrats running on Bush's low approval ratings. The presidential campaign was premised explicitly on hope and change. That campaign had long coattails and was ridden far and wide by Democrats. Congressional Democrats were not running on a theme about how unpopular Bush was.
Puhlease, Obama and the Democrats made hope and change the centerpiece of their 08 campaigns. Now that the Democrats cannot deliver on that promise you guys are engaged in a little historical revisionism to white-out that hope and change promise??
Look, we ain't that dumb.
Democrats did not have to run on Bush's approval ratings. They didn't have to. 2008 was the perfect storm for them. And what does Obama do after he is elected? Keeps more than 150 Bush appointees. Some change, huh?
I had hoped for the change that was promised. :mrgreen:
This is news to the US army, who lists its birthday as June 1775.Not true. Then President John Adams disbanded the Continental Army in 1783-84. Shortly after the US Army was then formed.
Good. We agree then that there does NOT need to be a declaration of war for the President do be CinC.Absolutely.
In order to pass anything in Congress, you need a quorum. A handful of surviving members isn't sufficient.Not really. In the last two hundred plus years, I don't think one day has passed where the whole congress was present at one time.
You didnt address the question.People have been arguing that for a long time.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.In every war we had a DOW we officially won. If you look at our record vs UN mandates etc our win record is dismal. If I remember correctly Desert Storm was the only clear victory.
This is news to the US army, who lists its birthday as June 1775.
United States Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPrior to and during the founding of the United States, military forces were supplied by untrained militia commanded by the states. When the Continental Congress first ordered a Continental Army to be formed, it was to be made up of militia from the states. That army, under the command of General George Washington, won the Revolutionary War, but afterwards was disbanded.
However, it soon became obvious that a standing army and navy were required. The United States Navy (and the Marine Corps) began when Congress ordered several frigates in 1794, and a standing army was created, however it was still only minimal and it relied mostly on contributions from state militia in times of war. The Coast Guard was created in 1790.
In order to pass anything in Congress, you need a quorum. A handful of surviving members isn't sufficient.
The Continental Congress stablished a standing army in June of 1775. It has been in place ever since.As I've said, it didn't start with a standing army. The Continental Army used by Washington wasn't a standing army.
No, there isn't. Each state has its own method for replacing a deceased congressman. This takes days or weeks, not the minutes necessary to react to the situation poresentd to you.There's probably some crazy line of succession or something like that in case the wholly improbable event that you laid out ever came to fruition.
So, you DO argue that the President cannot order a counterstrike w/o a DoW.I'll take the constraints on the use of the military over some highly improbable event any day of the week.
The Continental Congress stablished a standing army in June of 1775. It has been in place ever since.
Authorization to use force does not carry the same constraints as a declaration of war.
And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can "authorize use of force", it says that Congress can declare war.
Is that why history tells us the standing army was established 1794? That the army Washington had was disbanded?
Thats right -- I forgot!The US army can disagree all they want. The Continental Army Washington used was first drawn from the militia; second disbanded after the war. The standing army didn't come into place till 1794 when Congress made the Navy and army. At that time the army was still mostly comprised of called up militia. I don't care what the US Army says, history is quite clear on this one.
Thats right -- I forgot!
You know more about the history of the US Arny than the US Army does.
Sorry 'bout that.
:roll:
No -- fortunately, he was forced to admit his error on that one.Is someone still maintaining that the President is not the Commander-in-Chief?
No -- fortunately, he was forced to admit his error on that one.
No -- fortunately, he was forced to admit his error on that one.
When it becomes an error.When are you going to admit your error that the initial army wasn't standing?
When are you going to admit your error that the initial army wasn't standing? Rather the State militia had to be called up to fill the ranks. Which was the whole contention in the first place over the President and CinC. I never said he wasn't BTW. There was no error on my part. The initial army wasn't a standing army, it wasn't until later in which we made it a standing army. Thus while the President is CinC, the non-standing army which was heavily composed of State militia didn't exist till Congress called it up. So there wasn't much to CinC over till the Congress activated it. The Navy was our first standing military force, at the same time the army was made standing but still after that heavily supplemented from State militia.
So what is his point now?
That the President is not CiC unless Congress issues a declaration of war?
Is this poster really arguing in favor of removing civilian control of the military? Who the heck does he think commands the military in the absence of such a declaration? Or does the military cease to exist without such a declaration?
What the heck... :roll:
That was the statement I originally took issue with. He has since recanted.So what is his point now?
That the President is not CiC unless Congress issues a declaration of war?
There was no response to that question, though it was asked repeatedly.Who the heck does he think commands the military in the absence of such a declaration?
When it becomes an error.
Not that you have, in any way, shown.Well it is an error
That was the statement I originally took issue with. He has since recanted.
He does, however, still argue that the CinC cannot take any military action against a soverign state absent a DoW, regardless of the situation.
This would include a retalliatory strike against the Russians, should they first-strike us with their ICBMs.
There was no response to that question, though it was asked repeatedly.
Not that you have, in any way, shown.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?