Commander in Chief...was: [MV] Here's What I sent
Cougarjack@aol.com
Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:50:14 EST
List,
During one of those panelized TV constitutional debates that PBS is so well
known for, it was brought out by several law enforcement types and judges that
this notion is false.
According to their claims, the president only receives that title after the
Congress passes a formal war declaration, at which juncture the title passes
to him for the duration of the hostilities. Once the war is concluded, the
title is rescinded, and again becomes the domain of the Congress . During
peacetime, the president may not use the title of Commander In Chief. My
understanding of this mechanism is that it was intended to prevent the
president from commanding the armed forces against the people. Remember "we
the people"? I wonder how this question would be addressed by our
representatives if we asked?
Regarding the need to communicate our feelings to the White House, I can
assure everyone on this list that the White House already knows our feelings,
and the deed was done despite them, the intention having been directed at US.
After all, here we are, communicating in a medium which was an original
construct of the government, and you may be assured that same government
still controls most of the large backbone servers, and that every word we
speak here is being observed.
<< I understand it is a violation of UCMJ for a serviceman to make
disparaging remarks about the commander-in-chief. If you have not yet >>
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.