THE CONSTITUTION PART XII - MILITARY APPROPRIATIONS
Article I, Section 8 - The Legislative Branch - "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy"
Article II, Section 2 - The Executive Branch - "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"
The powers of the individual Branches of government concerning the United States Military are clearly out lined in the Constitution. The separation of those powers concerning their duties and responsibilities are precise and distinct to each Branch.
Article II which covers the governmental responsibilities of both Houses of Congress distinctly places the responsibility of provision for and maintenance of the military specifically in the duties of the United States House of Representatives and Senate.
Congress therefor provides funding, for every aspect of military existence from operations to equipment. The specific responsibility , " raise and support Armies," and , "provide and maintain a Navy, " are specifically out lined in Section 8. Additionally appropriating funding for this provision is stated as not to exceed a period of, "two years, " without review by the Congress for the appropriation of funding.
The actual use of the military Constitutionally is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and specifically The President of The United States as Commander in Chief. Article II, Section 2 specifically states that , "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
As Commander in Chief, the President is the appointed governmental head of the military and as stated in the Constitution he, " he may require the Opinion, " of Department Heads in his responsibility as Commander in Chief, but he alone is the sole Constitutionally appointed officer of the government for the military and responsible for the military, "when called into the actual Service of the United States."
The total misconception that Congress also has responsibility for military action is found nowhere in the Constitution. The sole responsibility of the Congress for the military is provision and maintenance. They have no authority to create or implement strategy, deployment, or any other command decision. The Congress can as a course of action to limit the command capability of the President cut funding to the military but have absolutely no Constitutional responsibilities concerning any command decisions or strategy for the use of the military.
The President as Commander in Chief commands all decisions concerning use of the military in defense of the United States as part of his Constitutional oath to, "defend and protect the Constitution." He does have to request from the Congress any and all funding for use of the military whether in war or in peace. The Constitution does not require the President at any time to consult with or receive authorization from the Congress for matters of strategy, deployment or any other command decision when using the military in , "actual Service of the United States."
The authorization in declaring war is given by Congressional authority but once given whether in an actual official declaration of war or in a use of force resolution, the President then under his authority as Commander in Chief authorizes and delegates all command decisions as need be for military action.
Any attempt by the Congress to micro-manage military action through legislation would first face a Presidential VETO. Then if that VETO were to be over turned the legislation would face a Supreme Court challenge in which the Court by strict Constitutional standards would be compelled to over turn because of the clear and distinct Separation of Powers in the Constitution concerning military operations and especially the use thereof in, "actual Service of the United States."
The only Constitutionally legal action that the Congress can take in ending the use of the military is through their authority of provision. They do have the Constitutional authority do de-fund military action which would force the Commander in Chief to end military action since he could no longer supply the Soldiers, Seaman, Marines and Air Force with the necessary means to fulfill their duty in defense of The United States.
Any other action by the Congress to attempt to control any aspect of the military other then funding is in direct violation of the Constitution and therefor under United States law illegal.
Ken Taylor
Article II, Section 2 - The Executive Branch - "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"
The powers of the individual Branches of government concerning the United States Military are clearly out lined in the Constitution. The separation of those powers concerning their duties and responsibilities are precise and distinct to each Branch.
Article II which covers the governmental responsibilities of both Houses of Congress distinctly places the responsibility of provision for and maintenance of the military specifically in the duties of the United States House of Representatives and Senate.
Congress therefor provides funding, for every aspect of military existence from operations to equipment. The specific responsibility , " raise and support Armies," and , "provide and maintain a Navy, " are specifically out lined in Section 8. Additionally appropriating funding for this provision is stated as not to exceed a period of, "two years, " without review by the Congress for the appropriation of funding.
The actual use of the military Constitutionally is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and specifically The President of The United States as Commander in Chief. Article II, Section 2 specifically states that , "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
As Commander in Chief, the President is the appointed governmental head of the military and as stated in the Constitution he, " he may require the Opinion, " of Department Heads in his responsibility as Commander in Chief, but he alone is the sole Constitutionally appointed officer of the government for the military and responsible for the military, "when called into the actual Service of the United States."
The total misconception that Congress also has responsibility for military action is found nowhere in the Constitution. The sole responsibility of the Congress for the military is provision and maintenance. They have no authority to create or implement strategy, deployment, or any other command decision. The Congress can as a course of action to limit the command capability of the President cut funding to the military but have absolutely no Constitutional responsibilities concerning any command decisions or strategy for the use of the military.
The President as Commander in Chief commands all decisions concerning use of the military in defense of the United States as part of his Constitutional oath to, "defend and protect the Constitution." He does have to request from the Congress any and all funding for use of the military whether in war or in peace. The Constitution does not require the President at any time to consult with or receive authorization from the Congress for matters of strategy, deployment or any other command decision when using the military in , "actual Service of the United States."
The authorization in declaring war is given by Congressional authority but once given whether in an actual official declaration of war or in a use of force resolution, the President then under his authority as Commander in Chief authorizes and delegates all command decisions as need be for military action.
Any attempt by the Congress to micro-manage military action through legislation would first face a Presidential VETO. Then if that VETO were to be over turned the legislation would face a Supreme Court challenge in which the Court by strict Constitutional standards would be compelled to over turn because of the clear and distinct Separation of Powers in the Constitution concerning military operations and especially the use thereof in, "actual Service of the United States."
The only Constitutionally legal action that the Congress can take in ending the use of the military is through their authority of provision. They do have the Constitutional authority do de-fund military action which would force the Commander in Chief to end military action since he could no longer supply the Soldiers, Seaman, Marines and Air Force with the necessary means to fulfill their duty in defense of The United States.
Any other action by the Congress to attempt to control any aspect of the military other then funding is in direct violation of the Constitution and therefor under United States law illegal.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 12:15 PM
32 Comments:
So I put to you the question. While they have the audacity to de-fund our troops while they are actively deployed in a theater of operation?
When the President veto's this legistlations based on thier meddling with strategic goals, will they posess the courage of their convictions and defund the troops or will they cave and fund them to avoid the political suicide that it will cause?
Absolutly not because they even know it is politcal suicide. That is why they are playing games with appropriations and depending on the ignorance of the average American concerning Congressional Constitutional authority.
Their next step will be to pass either thiry or sixty day approriations bills to keep this argument in the public eye and continually try to damage the President and play with funding of the troops.
Hypocrites and politcal idiots who only crave and lust for power at any expense!
And these are our elected elite.
Is this really the best we have to offer our country?
So what you are saying is Congress is teetering ever so close to overstepping THIER Constitutional Authority and can be overidden by the Supreme Court?
Well Well,
Ken thank you for pointing out all the crazyness of the Lunatic Left.
So Congress trying to "Micromanage" the war is Illegal!
They need to shut up and sit down and write a new Troop funding bill because they are basically dead in the water and trying to further thier political agenda on the backs of our Military!!
GRRRRRRRRRRRRR
By the way where have Syriana Pelosi and Traitor Reid been lately? I havent seen them since Harry Reid stuck his foot in his mouth with the "War is lost" comment.
Marie - They ( Damascus Nancy and Casino Harry) are waiting for Bush to VETO so they can hit the cameras and blame him for the troops not getting the funding. Political games as usual!
Ken,
Isnt going to work.
They can get up there and whine and moan that Bush has defunded the Troops but you know what?
Even the Troops arent going for any of this crap.
You should see how loud they are screeming about Harry Reid and the Democrats in Congress.
Pat Dollard.Com
They have just about had enough of this crap and they are speaking out LIVE From Iraq!
The Troops themselves know what Political tricks are being pulled by these Morons.
More and more the troops are speaking out against this war.
If you support this war, you are against the troops.
You are delusional Mudkitty. The troops want to finish the job. They know what duty and honor is and surrendering would not meet that standard.
There are always a few soldiers who are against ANY WAR> But the vast majority want to finish and are sick and tired of the politics and the defeatest rhetoric which kills their morale and emboldens the enemy!
My God! Do you even speak to any troops? Do you read any troop lit? Do you keep up with the news, or do you only get your news from World Nut Daily? My god! Aren't you aware of troop dissatisfaction? Aren't you aware that active duty troops are speaking out against this war in unprecedented numbers? How can you not be aware of these things? You just have to read from a variety of sources. But start with, for goodness sakes, the Marine Times...that liberal rag.
Anyway, according to rightwing nuts, finishing the "job" what ever that is, means never leaving, and taking all the oil.
"Taking all the oil!" LOL! Where is it, and why are we paying higher prices for it? Too funny!
I read soldiers e-mails all the time. I also read the stories that troops tell on Michael Yon's blog. They are mortified by the coverage of the MSM and they don't like Pelosi or Reid or Murtha. Anyone saying otherwise proves that they don't have a clue as to what they're talking about.
Have you ever noticed Ken, how a liar will always call other people a liar? Well, a nut will always accuse other people of being nuts.
Not to mention the fact that I was a Marine and have been in combat. I know how terrible war is, but also know that sometimes you just have to do it.
I also know dozens of people who are in theatre or who have returned. I just spent an evening with one of my old police partners who came back two months ago from his second tour. He has no problem with going back next year, and thinks we need to stay until we finish the job.
As a matter of fact, of all the people I personally know who are involved in the military, not a single one has expressed dissatisfaction with the President, or the opinion that we should surrender.
Catfish has obviously not talked to any of the Troops herself.
I would try Pat Dollard.Com
Catfish,
You can speak to the Troops directly there LIVE from Iraq!
And there are quite a few Vet's on Ken's blog that think you are full of shit!
But you just ignore them in hopes it will further your political agenda.
Sorry isnt gonna work anymore.
The Troops now DESPISE Harry Reid and the Democrats for trying to pull the rug out from undeneath them when they need equipment and stuff to complete this mission.
And the "War is lost" comment did it for them.
How DARE Harry Reid make a comment like that when our Troops are in harms way and in the middle of the Global War On Terrorism. HOW DARE HE!
Dont take my word for it Visit PatDollard.com
Of course you wont because YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
"My God! Do you even speak to any troops?"
I have more than two dozen that I correspond with on a regualar basis who are in Iraq and Afghanistan and serve our country. They are people who I admire and correspond with because they are heores and deserve our support.
Not once has any of them been negative nor have they expresses hearing of any among their fellow soldiers.
I correspond with them because I want to hear first hand what is going on and what they feel plus I feel it is the least that I can do to support these heroes.
I don't brag or write about this because I do it for them and as a way of soldiers knowing someone gives a damn about what they are doing.
I only mentioned this here because of your assinine accusation and you continual attempts to claim that our troops do not believe in what they are doing.
What I have expressed comes from first hand experience in corresponding with troops in the field who tell me just the opposite of what your lying liberal rhetoric is trying to portray to this country and giving the false idea that the troops are angry about the war and at America in order to promote your defeatest agenda and your anti -war ideas.
HOW MANY DO YOU TALK TO MUD AND HOW MANY DO YOU KNOW AND HOW MANY DO YOU REALLY GIVE A DAMN ABOUT RATHER THAN LOOKING FOR WAYS TO INSULT WHAT THEY DO AND WHY THEY FIGHT!!!!!!
I talk to as least as many as you do, and I read about, clearly, a lot more than you do.
How 'bout the fact the the Pent. just forbade soldiers from blogging? We're not talking about giving away troop positions here.
The reason the Pentagon has banned soldiers from blogging, is because, more and more, active duty soldiers - the guys on the ground, who really know the real story - are speaking out against the occupation, and the murderous lack of planning that went in to it, more and more.
Pat Dollard?!!!!
You've got to be kidding me. If you knew anything about him, you'd know that he's the poster boy for moral depravity.
He's also certifiably insane.
A very dangerous man, that Pat Dollard. Very un-American as well.
Mudkitty,
Once agian you show your ignorance.
First how do you know you talk to as many or more than he does? How can you say you read about it more than he does?
The military did not ban soldiers from blogging. They simply required soldiers to notify their commanders of their intentions to blog and laid down restrictions for classified or sensitive information. This was done because the military has never had an official policy on such a matter and they had to establish clear protocols for restricting the flow of sensitive information from soldiers in the field. As they have stated, the blogs will not be judged innappropriate for the opinions expressed in them, only for the presence of information that could compromise the saftey of American soldiers or their operations.
Amazing how foolish you look when you know nothing of what you are talking about.
Catfish,
Pat Dollard?!!!!
You've got to be kidding me. If you knew anything about him, you'd know that he's the poster boy for moral depravity.
He's also certifiably insane.
A very dangerous man, that Pat Dollard. Very un-American as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CERTIFIABLY INSANE? POSTER BOY FOR MORAL DEPRAVITY? He is risking life and limb to tell these Marines stories and you have the gall to say that? What Moral authority do you have to judge him? Are you for friggen real? Pat Dollard is embedded with the 1/6th Marines RIGHT NOW, blogging LIVE from Iraq! Ar Ramadi to be exact!
But naturally instead of checking out his site you just say he's certifiable! How the hell do you know this?
You dont want to know ANYTHING that doesnt suit your defeatest political agenda.
The Troops have had it with people like you and Harry Reid.
You are the one that is certifiable!
Catfish!!!!!
OH MY GOD!!
YOU ARE INSANE!!
Are you bi-polar?
Again look at the tactic Marie. Vitriol comments and attacks on what she does not agree with. Suppression of opposing opinion and degrading of some one on a personal level.
She is not bi-polar, she is liberal.
What happened to the party of tollerance? A latent homosexual? Now where is the tollerance and understaning liber in you there, hmmm? Whoremongering? I thought a persons sexual life was their own business.
When all you can do is spew vile hatred, your cause is lost.
Seriously - just do a tiny bit of research. It won't take much. This guy is NOTORIOUS.
That was not my point at all. My point (to most) was obvious, you do not agree with the man so you attack him personally. Not his work. Not his deeds. Not his statements. You attack him with vile statements and hateful remarks. This is the way of liberals, when you cannot assault someones ideals, you assault them personally.
I said latent homosexual. Look it up if you have to. Big dif.
You guys really do need everything spelled out to you. For the record, I'm pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage. And I'm half gay myself you maroons.
CCC - no - that's what republicans do (the Clintons come to mind.) The stuff about Dollard is a matter of public record (not to mention public court records.)
You guys need to get out more.
But hey, if Dollard's your man, run him for president.
I actually barely not who Pat Dollard is.
Once agian I was commenting on you and your style of attacking those that you do not agree with.
You claim Republican do this, yet here we see the evidence that even that statement is not true. It is you who did it, no Republican in sight when the attack began.
If you want to look at track records, I assure you we welcome that. I agree, the Republicans went after Clinotn, they did so for some of the same reasons you condem Dollars. Rampant sexual behavior in the White House, lying under oath, etc. Who have they gone after in the last few years? While Democrats attacked everyone in this administration and have dragged more people to testify before Congress over crimes that never occurred that any other time in our history.
You remember a Republican caught making lude sexual advances to a page? Well, he is GONE. The personal attack fell upon him like a truck full of bricks. Yet when a Democrat was caught having a homosexual relationship with a page, he turned his back on the House floor and was applauded for his character. He claimed that it was his personal sex life and not anyone esles business. He still hold that Representative seat.
No it is Democrats to attack and assault character for any flaw they can find. When that same light of skepticism is applied to them, they tell you to mind your own business and that you do not have the right to judge them. It is hypocracy on the highest level. It is immoral and dishonest. It is liberalism.
CC,
Again look at the tactic Marie. Vitriol comments and attacks on what she does not agree with. Suppression of opposing opinion and degrading of some one on a personal level.
She is not bi-polar, she is liberal.
I couldnt agree more! However I notice bouts of some kind of Cognitive Malfunction in her tone.
Catfish,
I said latent homosexual. Look it up if you have to. Big dif.
You guys really do need everything spelled out to you. For the record, I'm pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage. And I'm half gay myself you maroons.
Spelled out to us? You wont even answer a simple question let alone spell snything out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wait a minute.
How can one be "half" gay?
Or is it Sybil who is gay, and you are the straight one at times?
Honestly I cant tell at any given moment which one I'm talking to.
Dollard for the REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL nomination!
Nothing could please me more.
Who else you got?
Half gay? Are you kidding? You've never heard of bisexuality? Are you living on earth?
Marie, you're obsessed with me and you need to get over it. Try going on a 30 day mudkitty fast.
Catfish,
On the contrary, I like you. I especially like you when you get bent out of shape, it's a riot! lol
Ah, the sincerity of rightwingers...suddenly you like mudkitty.
Post a Comment
<< Home