• 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

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?
 
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?





d00d will you shut up already about Bush! if I keep hearing you talk bush, I am gonna ask you to start ponying up singles...... :mrgreen:
 
Reverend HellhOund wrote.
Quote
(I had hoped for the change that was promised.)

You are getting the change that was promised.
The change meaning that it is now Democrats that are providing these stories. :rofl:rofl:mrgreen::3oops:
 
I had hoped for the change that was promised. :mrgreen:

Oh well, you have to give him a chance, after he takes office.;)

Regarding the Richardson pay for play scheme and his withdrawal- I saw this on the news last night - and the MSM is not even carrying the story today- you have to search it out.

|Finally found on Politico, an interesting article that porky Bill was not giving the obama team all the info on this grand jury investigation they requested - so they advised him to get off.:)
 
Not true. Then President John Adams disbanded the Continental Army in 1783-84. Shortly after the US Army was then formed.
This is news to the US army, who lists its birthday as June 1775.
And to John Adams, who was Preisdent 1797-1801.

Absolutely.
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:

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

People have been arguing that for a long time.
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?

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.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
 
This is news to the US army, who lists its birthday as June 1775.

Prior 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.
United States Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I've said, it didn't start with a standing army. The Continental Army used by Washington wasn't a standing army. Congress established the Navy (as is their power) in 1794, and that's the beginning of our standing army. While the President may now be in CinC of the standing army, it's not his to do with as he pleases. Only Congress can declare war, if we're not under declaration of war the President can't just take the troops any ol' place he wants and start overthrowing governments. He can oversee the executive duties of the military during peace times, but he can't commit acts of war (rightfully) without declaration from Congress.

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

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. I'll take the constraints on the use of the military over some highly improbable event any day of the week.
 
As I've said, it didn't start with a standing army. The Continental Army used by Washington wasn't a standing army.
The Continental Congress stablished a standing army in June of 1775. It has been in place ever since.

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.
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.

I'll take the constraints on the use of the military over some highly improbable event any day of the week.
So, you DO argue that the President cannot order a counterstrike w/o a DoW.

Amazing.
 
The Continental Congress stablished a standing army in June of 1775. It has been in place ever since.

Is that why history tells us the standing army was established 1794? That the army Washington had was disbanded?
 
Authorization to use force does not carry the same constraints as a declaration of war.

And your basis for this conclusion is...what?

The Constitution does not indicate what form such a declaration must take. It simply grants to Congress the power to declare war. Congress can "declare" that any damn way it wants to.

And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can "authorize use of force", it says that Congress can declare war.

You're being obtuse.

If you're going to stick to a literal reading of the power to declare war then intellectual honesty requires you to argue that Congress can only declare war, i.e., issue such a declaration and that's it. But you insist that Congress has more power, the power to constrain the making of war. But the Constitution doesn't grant such authority to Congress.

Please stop making this stuff up as you go along.
 

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.

Furthermore, I think it would be understandable for the US Army to have it's "birthday" on the day we officially started fighting Britain with our army. That's our first major military assault as a people separate from England. But the existence of that particular military was not continuous at the time. It came and went a few times, called up to put down revolutions or whatever, disbanded afterward. Standing army came later.
 
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:
 
Thats right -- I forgot!
You know more about the history of the US Arny than the US Army does.
Sorry 'bout that.
:roll:

I apparently know more than you do. As I said, it's reasonable to call that the birth day, the Continental Army provided the ground work for what would become our standing army. But the majority of it was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris. Additionally, the Continental Army was our first army and with it we won our independence. I don't see any reason not to have it as the birthday of the army. But the Continental Army was not the standing army, that didn't come till later. After the Treaty of Paris and the disbanding of the Continental Army; the Congress created the United States Army. The actual organization which we have today. In 1783 when it was created, it still wasn't a full standing army; rather when needed for service it required the State militias to be called up into it. It wasn't until later in which it became a full standing army.
 
Last edited:
Is someone still maintaining that the President is not the Commander-in-Chief?
 
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 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.
 
No -- fortunately, he was forced to admit his error on that one.

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:
 
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.

What does this have to do with anything related to your carping about Congress not issuing declrations of war?
 
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:

How about instead of posting reactionary dribble, you actually read my posts? Cause all you're really doing now is pointless insult and going off of hearsay of another when everything is clearly in black and white. Take the time to read my posts and figure out what I'm saying. It was never a CinC question, it was an activation of the military question. So either read what I wrote and engage in an intellectually honest and mature manner, or just stop. You're not adding anything by this type of silly and childish insult.
 
So what is his point now?
That the President is not CiC unless Congress issues a declaration of war?
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.

Who the heck does he think commands the military in the absence of such a declaration?
There was no response to that question, though it was asked repeatedly.
 
When it becomes an error.

Well it is an error, the Continental Army was not a standing army. It was also composed heavily of State militia. It was disbanded and replaced with the US Army, which in and of itself didn't start as a standing army. It required the State militia to be called up, which required Congress. Congress has always held the power to "activate" (for lack of a better word) the military. The President is CinC of our standing army, but he does not own that army. He can't do whatever he wants with that army. Congress has to give a declaration for the President to use the military against another sovereign. It's always been that way, since the beginning. Except in the beginning Congress had more control since we didn't have a standing army, there was nothing the President could really be CinC over until the Congress called up the State militia. In many ways, that was a nicer system though unworkable in today's world.
 
That was the statement I originally took issue with. He has since recanted.

Not quite, I was never arguing the way you want to make believe I was arguing. I was stating that initially there was no standing army. And there wasn't, and the rhetoric of the Constitution is clearly written for a non-standing army. There was nothing to CinC over without Congress having issued a declaration and called up the State militia.

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 is no dynamic in the Constitution which provides for this. You'd have to amend the Constitution to give the President this power, I would caution you against such things. Because "retaliation" can become whatever the government wishes and if you're not careful you'll enable a system in which the President can always use the military for whatever he wants whenever he wants. And that's the power of a king. It must necessarily be restricted, there has to be opposing pieces of the government involved. It's the only way to check the power of the President. One man should never own the military.


There was no response to that question, though it was asked repeatedly.

It was answered repeatedly.
 
Last edited:
Not that you have, in any way, shown.

There's a quote and a link in a previous post of mine. Other than that, read a book. I'm not here to teach you high school US History, you should have paid attention back then. Reality is as it is, and the time line for our military is well documented and is outlined in my posts. Continental Army (composed mostly of State militia) to US Army (initially composed mostly of State militia) to standing US Army (still at the beginning relying heavily on State militia, but building up its numbers to eventually support itself).
 
Back
Top Bottom