The Russians do know about those, so could be, though that speaks to means rather than motivation mostly.
Generally, there is a Deputy Commander in place who takes over immediately. Saw today that the permanent replacement has been confirmed.So, if POTUS doesn't become involved in the temp replacement it's OK?
I've read more than once that the Russians employ this technique fairly frequently.
In the absence of information, all any of us can do is speculate. I mean, maybe there was an ongoing domestic situation or he suffered from depression or had recently been given a terminal diagnosis or--who knows? All I know so far is that he wasn't under investigation.
Generally, there is a Deputy Commander in place who takes over immediately. Saw today that the permanent replacement has been confirmed.
The Constitution does cover any possible solution, particularly emergent situations like the death of a military commander. Military regulations cover situations like this; it's NOT an "unofficial" chain of command, it is THE chain of command; while the permanent replacement was being confirmed through the Senate a temporary stepped in. The permanent replacement has assumed command.But not in The Constitution. Is the automatic deputy replacement a judicial precedent? Who decided on the unofficial chain of command resulting in the deputy 5th fleet commander succeeding to the 5th fleet commander?
The Constitution does cover any possible solution, particularly emergent situations like the death of a military commander. Military regulations cover situations like this; it's NOT an "unofficial" chain of command, it is THE chain of command; while the permanent replacement was being confirmed through the Senate a temporary stepped in. The permanent replacement has assumed command.
And The Constitution willfully acknowledges this military chain of command?
What is actually addressed in the Constitution inre military chain of command?
I haven't seen anything. Perhaps you have.
Bullseye thinks succession of military federal offices have been addressed by chain of command which is referenced by The Constitution.The Constitution does cover any possible solution, particularly emergent situations like the death of a military commander. Military regulations cover situations like this; it's NOT an "unofficial" chain of command, it is THE chain of command; while the permanent replacement was being confirmed through the Senate a temporary stepped in. The permanent replacement has assumed command.
The Constitution does cover any possible solution, particularly emergent situations like the death of a military commander. Military regulations cover situations like this; it's NOT an "unofficial" chain of command, it is THE chain of command; while the permanent replacement was being confirmed through the Senate a temporary stepped in. The permanent replacement has assumed command.
Bullseye thinks succession of military federal offices have been addressed by chain of command which is referenced by The Constitution.
You are right, Fledermaus, The Constitution has not done so. In fact, The Constitution is wholly lacking in protocol for succession of most federal offices.
For example, The Constitution does not generally provide for the succession of federal office before a new office head can be confirmed by the Senate.
Was the intention of The Constitution to leave that post empty until the confirmation? Who would provide leadership and decisions, for example, in times of crisis before the confirmation? The Constitution is mute.
If you are, indeed, a retired USN type, you lived it. A skipper relieved for cause is replaced by the XO - if qualified - until a new CO can be named, for instance. I personally served on a staff where the Commodore suffered a health problem while we were deployed and had to return to CONUS; he was replaced, temporarily, by the Chief of Staff, until a permanent Commander could be detailed.I guess I must have missed this the few hundred times that I have referenced the Constitution?
No, I don't. But, I do KNOW, that the Constitution doesn't cover every possible circumstance, which is why there are supporting federal and military directives to deal with the issue.Bullseye thinks succession of military federal offices have been addressed by chain of command which is referenced by The Constitution.
It addresses those that are deemed principle advisors to the President, e.g. Cabinet Secretaries, etc.cabse5 said:You are right, Fledermaus, The Constitution has not done so. In fact, The Constitution is wholly lacking in protocol for succession of most federal offices.
Exactly, positions that MUST be filled, for instance Commanders of major military commands such as numbered fleets follow established procedures to ensure someone is ALWAYS in command.cabse said:For example, The Constitution does not generally provide for the succession of federal office before a new office head can be confirmed by the Senate.
Was the intention of The Constitution to leave that post empty until the confirmation? Who would provide leadership and decisions, for example, in times of crisis before the confirmation? The Constitution is mute.
Read it and find out. Cliff Notes version: The President is designed the Commander and Chief of the militia, and one of Congress's duties is to raise and equip a military.And The Constitution willfully acknowledges this military chain of command?
If you are, indeed, a retired USN type, you lived it. A skipper relieved for cause is replaced by the XO - if qualified - until a new CO can be named, for instance. I personally served on a staff where the Commodore suffered a health problem while we were deployed and had to return to CONUS; he was replaced, temporarily, by the Chief of Staff, until a permanent Commander could be detailed.
You can reference it a thousand times. Doesn't change anything - the military has replacement policies to ensure there is always a fully qualified commander in charge. Try to understand the Constitution is the foundation other laws and regulations are derived from.I guess I must have missed this the few hundred times that I have referenced the Constitution?
Where does it say that in the Constitution? :lamoThe First Lt. can also replace the skipper if the XO is a Limited Duty officer. (LDO)
Where does it say that in the Constitution? :lamo
I'm sorry. You meant to post any possible vacant military solution. I get it now.The Constitution does cover any possible solution, particularly emergent situations like the death of a military commander. Military regulations cover situations like this; it's NOT an "unofficial" chain of command, it is THE chain of command; while the permanent replacement was being confirmed through the Senate a temporary stepped in. The permanent replacement has assumed command.
Sorry, I left out the word "not" in that first sentence as in "The Constitution does NOT cover any possible . . .". But yes, the military has regulations and procedures in place to cover succession to command in all possible circumstances.I'm sorry. You meant to post any possible vacant military solution. I get it now.
Did the Russians use their giant, radioactive space weasel technology?
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?