Presidents What Has Been Shot At

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
:
: :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: :news : : "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: : .. .
: : : "Tarver Engineering" wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :"John R Weiss" wrote in
message
: : : :news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
: : : : "Tarver Engineering" wrote...
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : When is the CinC not Military?
: : : :
: : : : If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the
:President of the United
: : : : States.
: : : :
: : : : If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
: : : :
: : : :I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the
:President.
: : :
: : : Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
: : : Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.
: : :
: : :The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra
Constitutional
:in
: : :nature.
: :
: : False.
: :
: :Show me the DoD in the constitution.
:
: Show me Tarver in the Constitution. That's doesn't make you "extra
: Constitutional in nature".
:
: See Article II, Section 2.
:
:Article II Section 2 proves my contention, but has zero to do with what
you
:wrote, Fred.

Work on that reading comprehension, Tarver.

I have no such problem, Fred.

The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is no
DoD in the US Constitution.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:40:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is no
DoD in the US Constitution.

The DoD is, as you indicate, not mentioned in the Constitution. None
of the Cabinet is mentioned in the Constitution. It was assumed, based
on experience with other democracy's chief executive operations
(including the PM in the British Parliament) that the President would
be assisted by trusted associates in managing the government. (As an
aside, DoD only came into being in 1947 as a replacement for the DoW.)

But, more importantly, the power of the President is inherent in the
Constitution and is delegated by the States. The Congress, as a
co-equal branch of government has no delegational authority.

The President is designated in the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief
of the military and by law may not be a military person. The tradition
of civilian control of the military is a basic tenet of stable
democratic systems.

There's still an empty seat in my American Government class any time
you're in the neighborhood, John.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:40:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is
no
DoD in the US Constitution.

The DoD is, as you indicate, not mentioned in the Constitution. None
of the Cabinet is mentioned in the Constitution. It was assumed, based
on experience with other democracy's chief executive operations
(including the PM in the British Parliament) that the President would
be assisted by trusted associates in managing the government. (As an
aside, DoD only came into being in 1947 as a replacement for the DoW.)

All Cabinet level Executive positions are Congressional Authority delegated
to the Excutive. The reason the GAO can investigate Cabinet level officers
and their offices is because they exist as an extension of Congress.

But, more importantly, the power of the President is inherent in the
Constitution and is delegated by the States. The Congress, as a
co-equal branch of government has no delegational authority.

LOL

The Congress has proven that they can Delegate spending authority to the
Executive.

The President is designated in the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief
of the military and by law may not be a military person. The tradition
of civilian control of the military is a basic tenet of stable
democratic systems.

Non-sequitur.

The President of these United States is Commander of the Military because
George Washington insisted on the Power. Washington, as Commander of the
Army of Virginia, was the most powerful man in North America and he was not
interested in being President without command of the Military.

No George Washington, no Constitution.

There's still an empty seat in my American Government class any time
you're in the neighborhood, John.

I would not wish to be contaminated by your negative knowledge, Rasimus.

Tarver Engineering wrote:



I have no such problem, Fred.

The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is no
DoD in the US Constitution.

This is Meaningless

The constitution, not congress grants the president all "executive" authority

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America.....

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;
he may require the opinion, in
writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any
subject relating to the duties of their
respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for
offenses against the United States,
except in cases of impeachment.

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Congress had the power
to create an army and navy, but the president was its "commander". The
president gives "military" orders to subordinate commanders. He does not merely
give "policy" direction as the Prime minister did in England.

Vince

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Congress had the
power
to create an army and navy, but the president was its "commander". The
president gives "military" orders to subordinate commanders. He does not
merely
give "policy" direction as the Prime minister did in England.

The President is "commander" because that was the price of getting George
Washington to agree to be President.

The DoD is a mechanism whererby Congress' money is spent. That is why
Congress has the Authority to confirm, or reject, Cabinet level Executive
heads.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Congress had the
power
to create an army and navy, but the president was its "commander". The
president gives "military" orders to subordinate commanders. He does not
merely
give "policy" direction as the Prime minister did in England.

The President is "commander" because that was the price of getting George
Washington to agree to be President.

you are confusing rationale with the basis for power. The status as commander
in chief derives from the constitution.



The DoD is a mechanism whererby Congress' money is spent. That is why
Congress has the Authority to confirm, or reject, Cabinet level Executive
heads.

no, The constitution confers that power , and its the senate, not congress that
can Advise and consent.
has nothing to do with the spending power.

Vince


he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall
appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme
Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not
herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the
Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they
think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of
departments.

Vince

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Congress had
the
power
to create an army and navy, but the president was its "commander".
The
president gives "military" orders to subordinate commanders. He does
not merely
give "policy" direction as the Prime minister did in England.

The President is "commander" because that was the price of getting
George
Washington to agree to be President.

you are confusing rationale with the basis for power. The status as
commander
in chief derives from the constitution.

I am educating you professor, don't attempt to project your confusion on to
me.

The DoD is a mechanism whererby Congress' money is spent. That is why
Congress has the Authority to confirm, or reject, Cabinet level
Executive
heads.

no, The constitution confers that power , and its the senate, not congress
that can Advise and consent.
has nothing to do with the spending power.

All Cabinet level positions are created by Congress to spend Congress'
money. It is a way for Congress to evade their responsibility for spending.
If Congress had to write a check each time, as provided for by the
Constitution, there would be no excuse for out of control spending.

Tarver Engineering wrote:


you are confusing rationale with the basis for power. The status as
commander
in chief derives from the constitution.

I am educating you professor, don't attempt to project your confusion on to
me.


I'm always happy to be educated. I studied Constitutional law. I've even
published on it.
see below



The DoD is a mechanism whererby Congress' money is spent. That is why
Congress has the Authority to confirm, or reject, Cabinet level
Executive
heads.

no, The constitution confers that power , and its the senate, not congress
that can Advise and consent.
has nothing to do with the spending power.

All Cabinet level positions are created by Congress to spend Congress'
money.

Its the governments money, not "congress'" money

It is a way for Congress to evade their responsibility for spending.
If Congress had to write a check each time, as provided for by the
Constitution, there would be no excuse for out of control spending.

nonsense. Spending is an executive function. Congress "appropriates" money

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations
made by law; and a regular
statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be
published from time to time. "

Appropriation is a legislative function. Spending money is an executive
function.

Vince

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...

Its the governments money, not "congress'" money

Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of the
Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution. The purse is
Congress'.

From: "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
Date: 2/18/2004 3:57 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:



Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Congress had the
power
to create an army and navy, but the president was its "commander". The
president gives "military" orders to subordinate commanders. He does not
merely
give "policy" direction as the Prime minister did in England.

The President is "commander" because that was the price of getting George
Washington to agree to be President.

you are confusing rationale with the basis for power. The status as
commander
in chief derives from the constitution.



The DoD is a mechanism whererby Congress' money is spent. That is why
Congress has the Authority to confirm, or reject, Cabinet level Executive
heads.

no, The constitution confers that power , and its the senate, not congress
that
can Advise and consent.
has nothing to do with the spending power.

Vince


he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
shall
appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
Supreme
Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are
not
herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the
Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they
think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads
of
departments.

Vince

Vince, tarver has never allowed reality to get in the way and will never admit
when he's wrong. If you need a laugh do a Google search of his name in
newsgroups like this one and RAH. He's spewed in many others and has even
claimed to be an expert on a wide range of subjects.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired