Is the Voluntary Military a Good?

[Quantum Windbag]

The military is subject to the President and the laws of Congress.

Article I Section 3: Congress shall have "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Article II Section 2 "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 military is commanded by the President and the chain of command is delegated down from there."

Wrong. The Constitution sits atop the chain of command and the President is sworn"... to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" and is restricted from giving any order that exceeds the authority granted therein.

Wrong again. For one thing, the military is not the militia. They are not privateers either, just in case you want to argue that Congress can issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal.

 

[California Girl]

You, CG, are not the boss of any one here, particularly when you are fooling around in Europe, condemning the US and living (I hope) a good life there.

Try giving a soldier an order.

What a foolish, foolish comment. The military is commanded by the President and the chain of command is delegated down from there. You go try to give a soldier an order. What a foolish, foolish comment.

The OP claims that the US military work for the Government. They do not. They protect the Constitution, and it's people. And... that government that you claim they work for... they work for us too. We are the boss. Not them.

We command the President, Congress and everyone employed through the Federal Government. The President is the CiC of the military, and we are the CiC of the President. You may not like that fact, but it remains a fact. The President is not the boss of us... we are the boss. We hire and we fire Presidents. That, my deluded one, is being the boss.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Everyone who served in the military knows some things. And while my perspective is from the sixties I would think these things still hold. No soldier, Marine, Air Force, Army, or Navy recruit does anything they are not told to do. GIs of any strip work for their government, if they disagreed with any policy or duty, be it KP or latrine duty, they were always free to see the Chaplain.

Military life can be a good life if you can tolerate the restrictions and the constant travel, sometimes to the remotest reaches of the earth. Family stayed home. This lead to many family problems, the saddest thing for the soldier was the 'Dear John.' Personally I never quite fit in, my time was the time of the draft and most American boys thought it a duty and not the enslavement some consider it today. Failure to salute got my ass reamed out many times. 'Sorry Sir, I didn't see you.'

But you learn in the military, we still had the GI Bill, and the service taught you to take care of yourself, to grow up, to learn during those hours of just watch. We had lots of drunks and lots of lifers, and lots of dreamers hoping for a better tomorrow, no one complained about three-two, like all things it was a mixed experience.

Now consider today when Navy Seals presume to take credit for something they were ordered to do and when they were provided the training and tools to do it? Obviously Obama deserves credit for a gutsy decision and the Seals great credit for a pretty flawless operation, but when did this mindless (political?) whining become part of the military too? It is bad enough we have the useless whining of the tea party, now the military has entered the fray. Remember RHIP, the chain of command matters if order is to be maintained. What has happened to the code of conduct.

So I ask is the voluntary military another step towards the decline of America? A step closer to a banana republic in which the banana owners control the republic. Is the all volunteer Army a good thing? I am beginning to think not. Diversity provides brakes on group think. Your thoughts.

A grunt forever and proud of it.

No free thinking person likes to be forced to do anything, Do you wanted forced people to be armed with automatic weapons?

 

[tjvh]

They don't 'work for the government', they work for us... 'we, the people'.

Idiot.

Yeah. When the meatheads are fucking you in the ass for "dissent" make sure and scream that repeatedly.
The reply will be as usual. "Just doing my job ma'am"

Urban Dictionary:

 

[daveman]

You, CG, are not the boss of any one here, particularly when you are fooling around in Europe, condemning the US and living (I hope) a good life there.

Try giving a soldier an order.

The OP claims that the US military work for the Government. They do not. They protect the Constitution, and it's people. And... that government that you claim they work for... they work for us too. We are the boss. Not them.

We command the President, Congress and everyone employed through the Federal Government. The President is the CiC of the military, and we are the CiC of the President. You may not like that fact, but it remains a fact. The President is not the boss of us... we are the boss. We hire and we fire Presidents. That, my deluded one, is being the boss.

Fakey doesn't realize it's "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".

He thinks it's "government by Obama".

 

[Wiseacre]

The military is subject to the President and the laws of Congress.

And the President is subject to the Constitution.

He's supposed to be. But the current POTUS acts more like a dictator who tries to find as many ways around Congress and the Constitution as possible. If Congress won't do it, he will use executive orders todo what he wants, legal or not.

 

[midcan5]

The military is subject to the President and the laws of Congress.

And the President is subject to the Constitution.

He's supposed to be. But the current POTUS acts more like a dictator who tries to find as many ways around Congress and the Constitution as possible. If Congress won't do it, he will use executive orders todo what he wants, legal or not.

This is a test of the rationality of the above statement: Wiseacre, what did you think of the last administration under George W. Bush? And please name the things Obama has done through executive orders that are illegal?

 

[Wiseacre]

The military is subject to the President and the laws of Congress.

And the President is subject to the Constitution.

He's supposed to be. But the current POTUS acts more like a dictator who tries to find as many ways around Congress and the Constitution as possible. If Congress won't do it, he will use executive orders todo what he wants, legal or not.

This is a test of the rationality of the above statement: Wiseacre, what did you think of the last administration under George W. Bush? And please name the things Obama has done through executive orders that are illegal?

I have/had no great love and admiration for the Bush administration, but that is beside the point. It seems to me that Obama has made a habit of bypassing Congress and implementing policies that Congress decided not to, in some cases of questionable legality. Where does he get off deciding which laws he will enforce and which he won't, such as the DOMA Act? That law was passed by a very large margin, and he decides unilaterally not to enforce it. That borders on illegality, usurping powers he's not constitutionally entitled to.

Then there's the executive order about the Dream Act, he arbitrarily decides to ignore parts of the law that he doesn't like and add other things that aren't in there. And then we have his admin deciding to exempt some states from the No Child Left Behind. They have no right to do that under the law, which counts as illegal to me. I think he has stepped way over the separation of powers line between the 3 branches of gov't. Puts me in mind of Julius Caesar before he made himself the big cahuna.

 

[midcan5]

Rationality fail: Your three complaints hardly come close to our last administration, not by a mile. You are just giving me partisan posturing over a president you simply don't like. Has little to do with reality, aka an assessment based on real issues.

Bush matters lots if you are going to criticize Obama for not defending a law (DOMA) a U.S. appeals court in Boston already struck down as unconstitutional. This is a non issue that society will eventually change as rights are extended to all.

The executive order allowing children of illegals the right to stay is iffy but faces the reality of illegal immigration. It does have qualifications. "Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said."

No child left behind has a long history of a good idea (?) that's impossible to implement and Obama again was recognizing the real situation of education and state power. This is an example of congress not following through.

"In October 2011, the Senate education committee voted in favor of a bipartisan bill that would dismantle the provisions of the law that used standardized test scores in reading and math to label tens of thousands of public schools as failing.

But Congress has shown no signs of taking action. Instead, the Obama in 2012 used its executive powers to issue waivers to more than half the nation’s states freeing them from central provisions of the law, raising the question of whether the decade-old federal program has been essentially nullified."

No Child Left Behind Act News - The New York Times

 

[Wiseacre]

Rationality fail: Your three complaints hardly come close to our last administration, not by a mile. You are just giving me partisan posturing over a president you simply don't like. Has little to do with reality, aka an assessment based on real issues.

Bush matters lots if you are going to criticize Obama for not defending a law (DOMA) a U.S. appeals court in Boston already struck down as unconstitutional. This is a non issue that society will eventually change as rights are extended to all.

The executive order allowing children of illegals the right to stay is iffy but faces the reality of illegal immigration. It does have qualifications. "Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said."

No child left behind has a long history of a good idea (?) that's impossible to implement and Obama again was recognizing the real situation of education and state power. This is an example of congress not following through.

"In October 2011, the Senate education committee voted in favor of a bipartisan bill that would dismantle the provisions of the law that used standardized test scores in reading and math to label tens of thousands of public schools as failing.

But Congress has shown no signs of taking action. Instead, the Obama in 2012 used its executive powers to issue waivers to more than half the nation’s states freeing them from central provisions of the law, raising the question of whether the decade-old federal program has been essentially nullified."

No Child Left Behind Act News - The New York Times

Funny, you talking about rationalization, look at the way you're rationalizing what Obama has done. The man has taken actions and made decisions that he has no constitutional right to make, things that are not in the law as written. Things that should be legislated by Congress; it ain't in his purview to do things if they don't pass laws authorizing his to do so. However you might think it's warranted, he has crossed the line that should separate the powers given to the 3 branches of our gov't.

 

[regent]

Is a law passed by Congress or a presidential act legal until the Court declares them unconsititutional?

 

[Wiseacre]

Is a law passed by Congress or a presidential act legal until the Court declares them unconsititutional?

Tell you what, we're kind of derailing this thread, talking about something that is off topic. So, we can start a new thread in the Politics forum tomorrow and explore the subject a little further. Either you or Midcan or someone else can start it or I'll do it myself when time permits. I'll answer your question and also address Midcan5's concerns.

 

[Politico]

4. The guys who joined to get their college paid for.

 

[ginscpy]

They don't 'work for the government', they work for us... 'we, the people'.

Idiot.

I went throught the full-fledged draft process.

Registered - then the lottery.

Would have served if called.

 

[9thIDdoc]

They don't 'work for the government', they work for us... 'we, the people'.

Idiot.

I went throught the full-fledged draft process.

Registered - then the lottery.

Would have served if called.

If you weren't called you only went through the first part.

 

[regent]

The military is subject to the President and the laws of Congress.

And the President is subject to the Constitution.

He's supposed to be. But the current POTUS acts more like a dictator who tries to find as many ways around Congress and the Constitution as possible. If Congress won't do it, he will use executive orders todo what he wants, legal or not.

So is a law of Congress or an act of the president legal until the Court declares it unconstitutional?

 

[midcan5]

Funny, you talking about rationalization, look at the way you're rationalizing what Obama has done. The man has taken actions and made decisions that he has no constitutional right to make, things that are not in the law as written. Things that should be legislated by Congress; it ain't in his purview to do things if they don't pass laws authorizing his to do so. However you might think it's warranted, he has crossed the line that should separate the powers given to the 3 branches of our gov't.

Yep, reason too is in the eye of the beholder, everything is, we just have a hard understanding the roots. But, and this is the big BUT - Obama either did or did not do something on the issues. I listed what I considered the salient points and to my mind he acted pragmatically reasonable. Now is torture invasions trumped up nonsense email monitoring equivalent. Not in any constitutional book I know.

Back on topic, if the the banana owners are managing the minds of the partisans and ideologies rather than minding the bananas is this a good thing?

"The Swift Boaters' main grievance against Kerry has nothing to do with his actions in Vietnam, but rather with Kerry's public opposition to the war after he returned to the United States. But even in this regard, the Swift Boat Veterans are fighting a war against the truth, not for it. They resent Kerry for having testified before Congress about war crimes committed in Vietnam by U.S. soldiers, but the historical record is quite clear that war crimes were committed. (Kerry gave his testimony shortly after Lieutenant William Calley's court martial for the My Lai massacre.)

The point to all of these attacks is not, as the Swift Boat Veterans pretend, concern for "the truth." Rather, they are engaged in a propaganda campaign aimed at influencing the behavior of a "target population" - in this case, voters." Sinking the Swift Boats

_

 

[Wiseacre]

Funny, you talking about rationalization, look at the way you're rationalizing what Obama has done. The man has taken actions and made decisions that he has no constitutional right to make, things that are not in the law as written. Things that should be legislated by Congress; it ain't in his purview to do things if they don't pass laws authorizing his to do so. However you might think it's warranted, he has crossed the line that should separate the powers given to the 3 branches of our gov't.

Yep, reason too is in the eye of the beholder, everything is, we just have a hard understanding the roots. But, and this is the big BUT - Obama either did or did not do something on the issues. I listed what I considered the salient points and to my mind he acted pragmatically reasonable. Now is torture invasions trumped up nonsense email monitoring equivalent. Not in any constitutional book I know.

Back on topic, if the the banana owners are managing the minds of the partisans and ideologies rather than minding the bananas is this a good thing?

"The Swift Boaters' main grievance against Kerry has nothing to do with his actions in Vietnam, but rather with Kerry's public opposition to the war after he returned to the United States. But even in this regard, the Swift Boat Veterans are fighting a war against the truth, not for it. They resent Kerry for having testified before Congress about war crimes committed in Vietnam by U.S. soldiers, but the historical record is quite clear that war crimes were committed. (Kerry gave his testimony shortly after Lieutenant William Calley's court martial for the My Lai massacre.)

The point to all of these attacks is not, as the Swift Boat Veterans pretend, concern for "the truth." Rather, they are engaged in a propaganda campaign aimed at influencing the behavior of a "target population" - in this case, voters." Sinking the Swift Boats

_

For further discussion about Obama's illegal activites in bypassing Congress, please visit my new thread in Politics, entitled "Bypassing Congress".

 

[9thIDdoc]

"The Swift Boaters' main grievance against Kerry has nothing to do with his actions in Vietnam, but rather with Kerry's public opposition to the war after he returned to the United States. But even in this regard, the Swift Boat Veterans are fighting a war against the truth, not for it. They resent Kerry for having testified before Congress about war crimes committed in Vietnam by U.S. soldiers, but the historical record is quite clear that war crimes were committed. (Kerry gave his testimony shortly after Lieutenant William Calley's court martial for the My Lai massacre.)

The point to all of these attacks is not, as the Swift Boat Veterans pretend, concern for "the truth." Rather, they are engaged in a propaganda campaign aimed at influencing the behavior of a "target population" - in this case, voters." Sinking the Swift Boats

Bullshit. Vietnam vets have less than warm and fuzzy feelings about Kerry for very good reasons. Kerry did NOT testify about war crimes commited in Vietnam. He lied under oath to Congress in a deliberate effort to defame honorable soldiers and sailors and undermine our National effort. His claims were investigated and none were found to be true. Your post just continues to slander those who did their duty in an honorable fashion. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[The Gadfly]

They don't 'work for the government', they work for us... 'we, the people'.

Idiot.

I went throught the full-fledged draft process.

Registered - then the lottery.

Would have served if called.

Well, you didn't, and you weren't, so it really doesn't matter, does it?.