Money where your mouth is: Who thinks the president should NOT be able to control military action

[mudesi]

How is it a Democracy when the head of state has full control of the military?

The president should not have such power. Every and all military action, including but not limited to - Raids, bombings, patrols, covert operations, precision strikes, and all out invasion - ought to be fully approved by two thirds of the House and over 50% of the Senate, and signed by the president.

The Congress should also have the authority to stop any ongoing military action, and I say this should only take a simple majority in either the House or the Senate, but not necessarily both. In addition, the president should have complete power to stop any military action, without needing approval from the House or the Senate.

Are we all in agreement?

[Drum]

1. I'd like to try that for awhile, definitely!

Recommended!

[hack89]

2. The Republican congress under Clinton would have loved that! nt

[mudesi]

4. Why?

I made sure to include that the president must sign on to any action approved by congress.

[hack89]

15. Perfect tool to make a President look weak

It would be a perfect political tool to maneuver a President into unpopular or divisive positions. If you think the President will veto it, why not vote to solve every international problem with force?

[harun]

3. In listening to the audio book 1776 a while back a couple things

really caught my attention in terms of presidential action and how they handled themselves. While we didn't have a country yet, George Washington was the leader of the military not the president (yet). When he was conducting operations against the British in Boston he wanted to take them on there with a full on assault. The war council (in Philadelphia I believe) over ruled that decision and told him to continue to conduct his operations the way he was. After the British retreated and pulled out of Boston the rebels entered the city. They could see the British positions were much more fortified than they previously thought and would have likely been massacred if the head on assault Washington wanted would have taken place.

The point is, before we were even a country people were running big operations and military moves against a council to make sure no "really" bad decisions were being made.

Another example of this is Israel. While I don't approve of the way they treat the Palestinians under occupation there are a number of good examples out of their government for how they approve military action. When an operation is being planned they will get the cabinet to all approve of it, and if I am not mistaken when major operations are being planned they get other approvals as well.

Now going in to Iraq I thought it was a stupid idea but it would have been better if at minimum we heard that B*sh had run the operation by ALL of his cabinet and they all said they approved. Now our constitution says not even that is enough. That an operation that big can only be approved by congress. Not the "authorization to decide on his own" crap we saw last time. If those processes would have been followed this already bad decision would have actually been a lot better in my mind. Authorization like that isn't a weakness that only helps our enemies, it is to protect us from ourselves. One individuals bad decision making, which would happen to anyone. The sooner we get back to a system like that the better, for the current path we are going down will lead to our destruction or revolution if the checks and balances are not restored.

[MADem]

5. It's a Democracy because we ELECT the Head of State to also be Commander in Chief

Hell, someone has to do it.

The Congress, however, has, or should have, oversight. They have the money and the power to declare war--or at least, that is the idea. They hand over the authority to "go" and the cash to the CinC, and he's off to the races...or the wars...

[malaise]

6. Congress declares war

that's in the constitution. How else do you check goons like W.

[Pavulon]

7. Funding

you don't change the rules because you do not like the team. The executive needs the power to take action. That action is funded and sanctioned by congress..

[mudesi]

8. That's what I have a problem with

The executive does not need the power to take action. He/she shouldn't have it.

[Pavulon]

9. The rules of the republic

were designed with checks and balances. The executive should and expressly does have the ability to take action when needed. Running all military action through congress is not acceptable.

[mudesi]

10. Why is it not acceptable?

Back in the day, when the military consisted of men on horses, it made some kind of sense.

But today, with the ability to bomb something with the flick of a switch, I don't see why one person ought to hold that kind of power.

[Pavulon]

11. There is no reason to change

the basic design of the entire united states government. The ability of the executive to act clearly has been beneficial in major conflicts. Right now we are not involved in any major conflicts. The last major conflict was the cuban missile crisis.

All subsequent wars/conflicts have required any clear executive intervention.

[MADem]

12. Like I said, they have the power to declare war and they control the purse strings. NT

[BeatleBoot]

13. First of all, We Do Not Live in a Democracy

We live in a Constitutional Republic - not a democracy.

The only thing a democracy means is that if the other 9 people agree, then they can eat the 10th person.

We vote, but we are bound by constraints as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

That said, the U.S. Constitution gives the authority of overseeing the military to the president.

Therefore, since I live in this country, I am constrained by the U.S. Constitution.

Everything else is a waste of time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. No one person, or small group of persons, should have the right to control the fate of millions.

There are millions of dead as a result of "leaders" deciding that people should die.

"War is not the continuation of politics with different means, it is the greatest mass-crime perpetrated on the community of man." Alfred Adler