• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems Usher in New Era of Dull Scandals

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.
 
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.

No. First off, one division does not make an army. Second, I have cited an expert on US History and it is said that there is no relation. Third, in that citation, one of the reasons for not having a standing army is that under the Articles of Confederation the US Government couldn't lay tax and thus couldn't raise money to keep a standing army. The division you quoted first off was not part of the US Continental Army. Secondly, it is considered an ancestor to a division in the military and that is why it is given the distinction of being the oldest division in the military but it's not a proof.

Experts and history say we did not have a standing army until the Constitution was adopted, we did not have a standing army under the Articles of Confederation.
 
No. First off, one division does not make an army
Its apparent you're ever going to admit you're wrong, when its been so obviously been proven that you are.
So, I shant waste any more time here.
:moon:
 
I'm still trying to figure out what the point of this exercise is...

Is Ikari arguing that the President ain't really the CiC because when the CiC authority was granted to the President there was not a standing Army over which to exercise CiC responsibility?

I'm pretty sure that Article II says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Hence, does it matter whether or not it was a national army or a military force consisting of state militia forces?
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to figure out what the point of this exercise is...
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'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.
 
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?
 
Just for argument's I'll concede these points.

So what?

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. You'd have the skeletal infrastructure left but you wouldn't have any fighting capability. 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.
 
This is news to the US army, who lists its birthday as June 1775.

That was the Continental Army, not the US Army we have today. Certain "state" units can trace there lineage back to them, but they were not again part of the US Army then.

And to John Adams, who was Preisdent 1797-1801.

"Greene was authorized to grant furloughs for North Carolina troops; and the lines of Maryland and Pennsylvania serving under him were ordered to march for their respective States. Three months' pay was to be furnished the furloughed soldiers. They were also to keep their arms and accoutrements as an extra allowance. The furloughs amounted to discharges. Few of the recipients ever returned, and so a great portion of the army was gradually disbanded before the definitive treaty was concluded in September. A remnant of the Continental army remained at West Point under Knox until the British evacuated New York (Nov. 25, 1783). After that event they all received their discharge.
" - The Continental Army

It was the Continental Congress who disbanded the Army in 1783. My bad. J. Adams did disband the Army again under Alexander Hamilton.

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:

Please point out were I ever said anything different or even implied it?

I think that is what in certain circles we call a lie.

In order to pass anything in Congress, you need a quorum. A handful of surviving members isn't sufficient.

If we had a DOW, this would not even be an issue.

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?

What are you talking about??? I never said anything even close. Never even implied such an asinine thing.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Because our success under a DOW is irrelevant. :roll:
 
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.

But, so what? I mean, what's the point of such an argument?

Thus, in order to go to war you required the Congress because they called up the troops.

No, you need the Congress because the Constitution grants the power to declare war and to raise an army.

There was a natural check and balance, and a huge on at that, when it came to our military.

Not a natural anything. The Framers were intent on denying the Executive to ability to declare a state of war and granted that power to the Congress. It's a deliberate constitutional check on executive authority.

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.

What "rhetoric" are you talking about?

In fact, nothing about that statement makes any sense at all.

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.

There was "more of a check?" How so?

There is no difference in process or form between a congressional declaration of war and a congressional authorization to use military force to make war. In other words, as such, both work to announce the intent to initiate hostilities and to commence war wherein the President, as CiC will wage war. The check still exists.

Declarations of war call up a lot of bureaucracy and treaty and foreign relations.

"Call up?" "A lot of bureaucracy?"

I already asked you what this meant and you didn't respond. So I am asking you, again. What bureaucracy are you talking about?

The affect on treaties and other foreign relations is something totally different from a check on Executive power which has been what you've been discussing. You're harping on this despite it's irrelevance to the discussion about checks and balances because Al Gonzales said something about it. That you continue citing reveals your deep misunderstanding and general ignorance about the concept of checks and balances and the Framer's intent in granting Congress the power to declare war.
 
Back
Top Bottom