Questions about the President being the Commander-in-Chief...

Discussion in 'Military' started by BrianH, Apr 13, 2012.

  1. BrianH
    Offline

    BrianH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,520
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +238
    With all of the political discussions going on lately, I've been in several debates about the role of the President during peace and war time. I've also been in several discussions about the intentions of the founding fathers in regards to the separation of powers in the 3 branches of government.

    It is pretty safe to say that the entire idea of the 3 branches of government was to limit the power of any one branch or person. This idea was formulated in direct opposition to monarchy. The founders new that they had to devise a system in which decisions could not be made by one person or branch.

    Question:
    Is the President only supposed to be the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces during war time?


    It's quite obvious that the founding fathers did not want one man (essentially a king) being able to send our troops to war on his own whims and desires.

    It seems to me that the founders intentions was to make the President the Commander-in-Chief of the military ONLY during war time. And to prevent the President from waging war when he wants, Congress was the only branch that could declare war. So effectively, the President would not be the Commander in Chief of the military unless a war was declared.

    I haven't done any indepth research on this but was just figuring that I'd post this and see what kind of opinions or answers I got.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2012

Share This Page