A President who commits troops to battle . . .

quote:

Originally posted by flotown79:
Which should the President of this country do?

Only one choice? I'd go with b,c, and d.

Flotown,
I would have to pick "all of the above", as long as telling the public the whole truth DOES NOT put any one's life in jeopardy or cause a leak of information to our enemies.

quote:

Originally posted by LMM:
Flotown,
I would have to pick "all of the above", as long as telling the public the whole truth DOES NOT put any one's life in jeopardy or cause a leak of information to our enemies.

LMM..... ALL the above should be the only answer to get America on the right track... so I agree with you.....

I voted once then he changed the poll and now my vote is gone . lmao . Wont vote again , he will change it .

A would certainly leave FDR out. He allowed Army pilots to serve on UK PBYs and other such postions well before Pearl Harbor and, inspite of, US law.

I'd say B, but that assumes the President's judgment is sound. Is that a safe assumption?

quote:

Originally posted by Cupid:
I voted once then he changed the poll and now my vote is gone . lmao . Wont vote again , he will change it .

I changed it to add all of the above. At the time I changed it there were only two votes.

According to the Constitution, the President cannot commit troops to battle - for whatever that's worth.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:
According to the Constitution, the President cannot commit troops to battle - for whatever that's worth.

The President can't declare war. However, the President or, for that matter, any general officer can commit troops to combat under certain circumstances. That's why congress confirms generals. Check the War Powers Act. In fact, the President can authorize the release of nuclear weapons, which congress cannot do.

The chain of command runs from the President to combatant commanders to troops in the field. The SecDef is in there, and some intermediate steps, but you get the point.

The War Powers Act only allows for the President to commit troops to battle if the US is under attack or serious threat. There is a 60 day period to allow for either withdrawal or declaration of war. None of flotown's hypotheticals can be addressed in the context of the War Powers Act.

quote:

Originally posted by dolemitejb:
The War Powers Act only allows for the President to commit troops to battle if the US is under attack or serious threat. There is a 60 day period to allow for either withdrawal or declaration of war. None of flotown's hypotheticals can be addressed in the context of the War Powers Act.

"Serious threat" is subject to interpretation. And we haven't had a real declaration of war for nearly seventy years. Do you see a bit of a flaw in your assumptions?

None of flotown's choices have any real bearing on a real crisis; they are simply philosophical expressions. I personally do not agree with the validity of the first choice, the next three are good descriptions of a "go to war" mindset.

Choices 2, 3, and 4 are good descriptions of what the President should be doing in his capacity as commander in chief. Although, the "weak congress" part would be irrelevant if the congress formally declared war.

The War Powers Act, most would argue, was created to allow the commander in chief to act swiftly in urgent situations, not to circumvent the congress's powers. Congress has not declared war since WW2. All subsequent military actions, I would argue, have been unconstitutional. I know we generally accept that these days, but it doesn't change what the Constitution, or for that matter the War Powers Act, says.

I would agree with "non-declared wars" with all that declaration implies. But unconstitutional? With all the whining about it since Viet Nam? Please.

I'm not sure how the War Powers Act got pulled into this. It was just a simple poll.

Nothing on this forum is simple or stays on topic!