This is pathetic.So let's see, a division which is considered and ancestor to a battalion of the US Army, which was created by a State and not federal government and which an expert in US Military history says that no modern division of the US military has any relation to the Continental army. Hmm, seems to me that this is more a tradition thing than it is an actual link.
This is pathetic.
You're SO concerned with not being wrong that you'll do anything to avoid having to admit as much.
There is a unit in the present day standing army that has continually been part of the standing US army since 1777. The historical record of the unit, which I cited to you, proves this.
That this unit exists proves, unquestionably, that there is no way whatsoever for you to then argue that the standing army of the Revolution was disbanded in toto.
So, keep on lying to yourself and to everyone else.
Its apparent you're ever going to admit you're wrong, when its been so obviously been proven that you are.No. First off, one division does not make an army
The point is for Ikari to see woy many different ways he can avoid having to to admit his argument doesnt have a leg to stand on.I'm still trying to figure out what the point of this exercise is...
I've already demonstrated and cited my post. You gave one division that wasn't initially part of the Continental Army, that is considered to be an ancestor of another division and therefore given a distinction of age, despite the fact that under the Articles of Confederation the Federal government hadn't the means to keep a standing army and against an expert in the field of US military history showing that there is no connection between the Continental Army and any modern day military force and then say that's proof enough. But it's not, there's nothing to trace, there's nothing to show they were retained as full time (which requires pay), and there's no army there. It's one division, a standing army has to be an army. One division of suspect origin and no proof of federal retention does not make a standing army. Experts verify that the Continental Army was not a standing army and that the Continental Army has no relation to our current one.
But yeah, keep thinking you're right.
Just for argument's I'll concede these points.
So what?
This is news to the US army, who lists its birthday as June 1775.
And to John Adams, who was Preisdent 1797-1801.
Good. We agree then that there does NOT need to be a declaration of war for the President do be CinC.
Glad to see you can change your mind :mrgreen:
In order to pass anything in Congress, you need a quorum. A handful of surviving members isn't sufficient.
You didnt address the question.
Do you STILL argue that the President MUST first wait for a DoW before using military force against another state?
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
The initial point before all this deflection took place was that originally we didn't have a standing army. Therefore, the President is CinC of the military, but without a standing army in peace time there isn't much to CinC over.
Thus, in order to go to war you required the Congress because they called up the troops.
There was a natural check and balance, and a huge on at that, when it came to our military.
The President was CinC when the Congress called up the military since there was no standing army at the time, the rhetoric agrees well with that of a non-standing army.
I don't argue against a standing army nor do I argue that the President isn't CinC of that standing army. It was just that initially there was more of a check and we need to follow the Constitution now to enforce this check. Congress isn't given the power to "authorize military force", it has the power to declare war.
Declarations of war call up a lot of bureaucracy and treaty and foreign relations.
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?