http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCJFZeTT4Yc

That pirate sitting behind the General should make her walk the plank. Even if she did "work so hard" to get her title, the General was hardly showing disrespect.

THE Senator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCJFZeTT4Yc
>
> That pirate sitting behind the General should make
> her walk the plank. Even if she did "work so
> hard" to get her title, the General was hardly
> showing disrespect.


While Boxer does have a bug up her ass about her title, she didn't belittle the General and she wasn't being a bitch. Anyone who has had a career in the military would understand the proper use of a title. What he did wasn't wrong. But there is nothing wrong with Boxer asking for him to refer to her as "Senator" either.

Sir or Ma'am are ingrained into you the second you step off the bus for recruit training, basic training, OCS, ROTC, the service academies, etc.

Its reflexive.

And honestly, Honorifics are just that. In the military you use the proper titles and to show respect. There is nothing wrong with being called Sir or Ma'am - he doesn't report to her, she is not his commander, she is a Senator. I am sure he calls the President "Sir" or Mr President (or Madam President assuming a woman). But she is an elected official - a judge works hard to get where they are, a doctor works hard to get where they are - I am sorry but getting elected can be accomplished by anyone that has enough money. I can see referring to their proper titles in formal correspondence, and perhaps when you run into them and say hello for the first time, but it gets fairly onerous if all you end up doing is saying yes Senator, no Senator, certainly Senator... Sir or Ma'am should have been fine.

She obviously has no great liking for the military, and while her tone or demeanor in this circumstance may not have been super bitchy, just the fact that she had to put him in his place like that during a formal hearing shows how little respect she has for him.

Too bad her folks back home don't realize she is not up there representing their interests anymore, other than where they coincide with her personal agenda.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> She obviously has no great liking for the
> military, and while her tone or demeanor in this
> circumstance may not have been super bitchy, just
> the fact that she had to put him in his place like
> that during a formal hearing shows how little
> respect she has for him.
>

Like this guy wasn't reamed much worse by his various commanding officers while he was going up the ranks? Give me a fucking break.

Yes, she has a stick up her ass. But what she did doesn't denigrate this guy one iota. If an old fat white guy from a red state did this, and I'm sure it has happened a time or two, nobody would be talking about it.

Boxer is a syphilitic cunt.

You know, you are in the military, you expect it from your superiors - that is how it works. But she was doing it because it was a public hearing - that is why it is a big deal. She decided she wanted to essentially show him that her cock was bigger than his on TV - and that is pretty much the deal. It gains her points with her liberal friends who also dislike the military, and they can all go "ooh, aah - look she told him didn't she!" She had no other "good" reason to do it - any other bad reasons would put her in line for a retirement home if she weren't a Senator (See Byrd).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2009 03:33PM by Registered Voter.

No idea what's going on, did not watch the video, but a general has worked harder to get to their position than a senator. Fuck politicians.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Concur. Especially Barbara Boxer who is consistenly viewed as being one of the stupidest people in the US Senate.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (See Byrd).

Robert Byrd does not demand that anyone call him Senator. He does, however, insist on being referred to as Grand Wizard from time to time.
Attachments:

She just felt insecure around a male authority figure, and took it out on him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton Lavey

She's correct in what she did. Although the military drills those responses in heads, this guy was a General and knew his audience and should have responded accordingly, no excuses.

A simple "mam" undercuts her position of authority, which the military loves to do with women. Women have worked hard to move up the ranks and should be given respect of that where it's due. You can bet that he would correct someone if they addresssed him "sir". A General should never have made the mistake, with all their experience over the years to build up rank, a General should not make mistakes, especially big ones, but they do. A lot of their mistakes cost lives.

Just because she's a woman you judge her more harshly. If it were a man in Boxer's position we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I pity those who commented negatively about this little slice of life, because it will only hurt you more as more women move into your life in a supervisory position. Just wait! Your ignorance will do you in soon.

For what it's worth check out the postings here after the thread was started, the times of each posting is almost on top of each other. More then a coincidence?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2009 12:24AM by spunky.

Yeah um - lets remember... a Senator has no "position of authority" in regards to the military. Sure, they can vote on funding, but if a Senator says jump, the guy in the uniform is going to ignore them totally.

She can have the respect of her peers which she is due - the General owes her nothing but a "Yes Ma'am". If he chooses to address her as Senator he can, but it certainly no sign of disrespect if, after his opening comments where he addresses her as Senator, he then replies with Ma'am. A Senator is NOT a rank.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No idea what's going on, did not watch the video,
> but a general has worked harder to get to their
> position than a senator. Fuck politicians.


It doesn't matter who worked harder. The military reports to civilian authority, not the other way around.

I didn't see the context of the hearing... was the General addressing all the men as senators, or was he saying "sir" to them?

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't see the context of the hearing... was the
> General addressing all the men as senators, or was
> he saying "sir" to them?


I have no idea.

Regardless, she wasn't overtly rude to the guy and she didn't dress him down, like some people would like us to believe. She merely requested that he call her "Senator" and gave an explanation why.

If she found "ma'am" to be offensive, she is a fucking dunderhead. But she didn't indicate that. She indicated that she preferred to be called "Senator."

As for the chain of command, the Military takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Military is answerable to civilian authority. While not in the direct line of command, Sen. Boxer represents the American people and is, thus, a representative of civilian authority.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No idea what's going on, did not watch the
> video,
> > but a general has worked harder to get to their
> > position than a senator. Fuck politicians.
>
>
> It doesn't matter who worked harder. The military
> reports to civilian authority, not the other way
> around.

If you put a senator and a general at a table and asked me to get them a cup of tea, I would serve the general first, no questions asked, whether or not they were male or female. There is a huge difference, at least in my mind, between someone who worked up to their rank, and someone who lied well enough to get voted in to theirs.

Also, congress people are not part of the military's ranking structure. Yes, they report to civilians, but those are Secretaries appointed by the President, not voted in by the Great Unwashed. Had he called her "Ms" or "Miss" or "Mrs" I would understand her ire, because that's not her title in that setting. However, "Ma'am" is a broad term of respect in the military, and calling him out on it means she's a cunt with something to prove.

Fuck her.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Sen. Boxer represents the American people

She actually only represents the people of California.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However, "Ma'am" is a broad term
> of respect in the military, and calling him out on
> it means she's a cunt with something to prove.
>

I don't disagree that she's being surly or prickly about this. But if a white guy with an "R" before his title did this, nobody would hear about it.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > However, "Ma'am" is a broad term
> > of respect in the military, and calling him out
> on
> > it means she's a cunt with something to prove.
> >
>
> I don't disagree that she's being surly or prickly
> about this. But if a white guy with an "R" before
> his title did this, nobody would hear about it.

So I don't know what the point of the thread is; is she a bitch, or is he an asshole?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

CA all the way! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> > Sen. Boxer represents the American people
>
> She actually only represents the people of
> California.


Californians' aren't Americans? When did that happen?

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But if a white guy with an "R" before
> his title did this, nobody would hear about it.

That is a pretty weak defense of her actions as it requires speculation. The fact is that you don't know unless a white male R has done it in the past or until one does it in the future.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> As for the chain of command, the Military takes an
> oath to uphold the Constitution. The Military is
> answerable to civilian authority. While not in the
> direct line of command, Sen. Boxer represents the
> American people and is, thus, a representative of
> civilian authority.

And yet, she STILL has no authority over the military - amazing.

The only "civilian" authority they are answerable to is the President of the US and certain Cabinet level "Secretary of..." offices he appoints over them. If the military is ordered into a civilian area due to a pandemic outbreak, or a terrorist incident, in most cases the proper local "civilian authority" will have no authority over them at all.

Senator Boxer is a SENATOR - the Constitution does not give a Senator any command authority over the military. There is no rule that says anyone has to address her by her honorific - because yes, it is an honorific. If you call her Ms/Mrs Boxer you would not be showing her any less respect in all honesty. That she chooses to point it out shows how insecure she is in her position IMHO.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > I don't disagree that she's being surly or
> prickly
> > about this. But if a white guy with an "R"
> before
> > his title did this, nobody would hear about it.
>
> So I don't know what the point of the thread is;
> is she a bitch, or is he an asshole?

She's a Senator who requested that she be called by her title and he's a General who was being respectful in any circumstance. I really don't get what the fucking issue is besides ragging on Boxer for something that is pretty stupid. Maybe the Republicans should actually bitch about some of Boxer's policies that run contrary to what they believe is good for the country instead of wasting time on this bullshit?

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CA all the way! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> >
> > > Sen. Boxer represents the American people
> >
> > She actually only represents the people of
> > California.
>
>
> Californians' aren't Americans? When did that
> happen?

well, technically given the amount of illegal and legal immigrants in CA, many are in fact NOT Americans. All Americans are not Californians. She only represents Californians, who may or may not be Americans.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But if a white guy with an "R" before
> > his title did this, nobody would hear about it.
>
> That is a pretty weak defense of her actions as it
> requires speculation. The fact is that you don't
> know unless a white male R has done it in the past
> or until one does it in the future.


I'm not using it as a defense. My defense is she had every right to ask it, regardless of what you think, and she wasn't disrespectful to the General when she asked for it. It might surprise you, but I Imhofe or someone else said something like this, I would be making the same case.

She represents the Americans living in California, but no others. "The American people" is usually a broader term.

WTL - you were the one that rose to the bait offered by the OP - my posts here have only been in response to those. Honestly I could care less if she has a bug up her ass - but there was nothing wrong with the General here.

And yes, for the most part I agree with MM on politicians in general.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Senator Boxer is a SENATOR - the Constitution does
> not give a Senator any command authority over the
> military. There is no rule that says anyone has to
> address her by her honorific - because yes, it is
> an honorific. If you call her Ms/Mrs Boxer you
> would not be showing her any less respect in all
> honesty. That she chooses to point it out shows
> how insecure she is in her position IMHO.


In the United States, Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war (in the War Powers Clause), while Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the commander-in-chief.

The Congress is a civilian authority over the military, fuckhead. I didn't say shit about "command authority."

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > But if a white guy with an "R" before
> > > his title did this, nobody would hear about
> it.
> >
> > That is a pretty weak defense of her actions as
> it
> > requires speculation. The fact is that you
> don't
> > know unless a white male R has done it in the
> past
> > or until one does it in the future.
>
>
> I'm not using it as a defense. My defense is she
> had every right to ask it, regardless of what you
> think, and she wasn't disrespectful to the General
> when she asked for it. It might surprise you, but
> I Imhofe or someone else said something like this,
> I would be making the same case.

Problem with that is that you don't know that he would say something like that. It takes a certain amount of bitchiness to rise to that level of disrespect.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Senator Boxer is a SENATOR - the Constitution
> does
> > not give a Senator any command authority over
> the
> > military. There is no rule that says anyone has
> to
> > address her by her honorific - because yes, it
> is
> > an honorific. If you call her Ms/Mrs Boxer you
> > would not be showing her any less respect in
> all
> > honesty. That she chooses to point it out shows
> > how insecure she is in her position IMHO.
>
>
> In the United States, Article I of the
> Constitution gives the Congress the power to
> declare war (in the War Powers Clause), while
> Article II of the Constitution establishes the
> President as the commander-in-chief.
>
> The Congress is a civilian authority over the
> military, fuckhead. I didn't say shit about
> "command authority."

Semantics.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTL - you were the one that rose to the bait
> offered by the OP - my posts here have only been
> in response to those. Honestly I could care less
> if she has a bug up her ass - but there was
> nothing wrong with the General here.
>
> And yes, for the most part I agree with MM on
> politicians in general.


Did I say that there was anything wrong with the General? For that matter, please point out where Sen. Boxer said there was something wrong with the General. She didn't. She merely asked to be called Senator.

As for MM's take on politicians in general, that is his opinion. I would argue that there are historical examples of where politicians with limited experience are held in higher esteem than the experienced military leaders who were under their command (Lincoln and McClellan; Truman and MacArthur).

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> >
> > In the United States, Article I of the
> > Constitution gives the Congress the power to
> > declare war (in the War Powers Clause), while
> > Article II of the Constitution establishes the
> > President as the commander-in-chief.
> >
> > The Congress is a civilian authority over the
> > military, fuckhead. I didn't say shit about
> > "command authority."
>
> Semantics.


It's not semantics when I am being accused of saying "command authority" when I never said that. I said "civilian authority." The military must respect the civilian authority of the Congress as well as the Executive and Judicial branches. Otherwise we would run the risk of the military cleaning out the U.S. Capitol anytime the Congress disagrees with the President.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the United States, Article I of the
> Constitution gives the Congress the power to
> declare war (in the War Powers Clause), while
> Article II of the Constitution establishes the
> President as the commander-in-chief.
>
> The Congress is a civilian authority over the
> military, fuckhead. I didn't say shit about
> "command authority."

Declaring War has nothing to do with any "authority" over the military - twatbrain.

The President could still order the military to go into any battle he so desires at ANY time, and there is no Senator that can order them to do anything else. Congress can then choose to impeach the President for doing something they did not authorize, but their authority stops at the piece of paper authorizing the President to conduct a War. So no, Congress is NOT a civilian authority over the Military, and nothing in the Constitution comes anywhere close to misconstruing that point. Congress can pass certain laws and such that affect the military, but not to any point that it abridges the President as the Commander in Chief. They can withhold funding for the military, and that is about the biggest lever they have. Other than that, she (or any other Senator) is just an asshat with a political agenda that in most cases is probably detrimental to the military for some reason or another. The only Senators you will see the military give "more" respect to than others are retired or ex-military that deserve their respect - and even then they will probably still only address them as Sir/Ma'am.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In the United States, Article I of the
> > Constitution gives the Congress the power to
> > declare war (in the War Powers Clause), while
> > Article II of the Constitution establishes the
> > President as the commander-in-chief.
> >
> > The Congress is a civilian authority over the
> > military, fuckhead. I didn't say shit about
> > "command authority."
>
> Declaring War has nothing to do with any
> "authority" over the military - twatbrain.
>
> The President could still order the military to go
> into any battle he so desires at ANY time, and
> there is no Senator that can order them to do
> anything else. Congress can then choose to impeach
> the President for doing something they did not
> authorize, but their authority stops at the piece
> of paper authorizing the President to conduct a
> War. So no, Congress is NOT a civilian authority
> over the Military, and nothing in the Constitution
> comes anywhere close to misconstruing that point.
> Congress can pass certain laws and such that
> affect the military, but not to any point that it
> abridges the President as the Commander in Chief.
> They can withhold funding for the military, and
> that is about the biggest lever they have. Other
> than that, she (or any other Senator) is just an
> asshat with a political agenda that in most cases
> is probably detrimental to the military for some
> reason or another. The only Senators you will see
> the military give "more" respect to than others
> are retired or ex-military that deserve their
> respect - and even then they will probably still
> only address them as Sir/Ma'am.

Semantics.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > The Congress is a civilian authority over the
> > military, fuckhead. I didn't say shit about
> > "command authority."
>
> Declaring War has nothing to do with any
> "authority" over the military - twatbrain.
>
> The President could still order the military to go
> into any battle he so desires at ANY time, and
> there is no Senator that can order them to do
> anything else. Congress can then choose to impeach
> the President for doing something they did not
> authorize, but their authority stops at the piece
> of paper authorizing the President to conduct a
> War. So no, Congress is NOT a civilian authority
> over the Military, and nothing in the Constitution
> comes anywhere close to misconstruing that point.
> Congress can pass certain laws and such that
> affect the military, but not to any point that it
> abridges the President as the Commander in Chief.
> They can withhold funding for the military, and
> that is about the biggest lever they have. Other
> than that, she (or any other Senator) is just an
> asshat with a political agenda that in most cases
> is probably detrimental to the military for some
> reason or another. The only Senators you will see
> the military give "more" respect to than others
> are retired or ex-military that deserve their
> respect - and even then they will probably still
> only address them as Sir/Ma'am.

The Military swears an oath to uphold what? The Constitution.

The Constitution defines the Federal government as what three branches? Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

The President cannot declare war. Congress can. The President cannot finance a war. Congress can. The President cannot fund the military. Congress can.

You know SHIT about the Constitution. You know SHIT about civilian vs. military authority. You know SHIT.

the question is, would a male senator correct or even care if the general addressed him as "sir"?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the question is, would a male senator correct or
> even care if the general addressed him as "sir"?


Probably not "sir," but surely if "Mr." was used.

Some would, some wouldn't. Those who get so wrapped up in titles have something to prove.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.

Melissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some would, some wouldn't. Those who get so
> wrapped up in titles have something to prove.


You mean, like the Military?

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Military swears an oath to uphold what? The
> Constitution.
>
> The Constitution defines the Federal government as
> what three branches? Executive, Legislative and
> Judicial.
>
> The President cannot declare war. Congress can.
> The President cannot finance a war. Congress can.
> The President cannot fund the military. Congress
> can.
>
> You know SHIT about the Constitution. You know
> SHIT about civilian vs. military authority. You
> know SHIT.

Yes and, the only real reason the military (in general) gives any respect to Congress is due to the fact that they hold the purse strings. The Constitution certainly does not give the judiciary authority over the military. Civilian authority (proper civilian authority that is) has nothing to do with Congress or the Judiciary, other than their defined role in how the government works in the first place. Congress is free to pass laws or amendments re-defining certain aspects of the authority, and the judiciary can review or interpret those laws to define just what they mean. But you aren't going to have a Senator go into the field and tell a soldier to perform a military action. Civilian authority only defines the fact that the military is accountable to, and directed by, Civilians - ie the President and his appointed staff in charge of the military.

Notice, you made the same point I did - the only real authority Congress has over the military is in how much money they authorize for their operation. If all the bodies and bullets and explosives already bought and paid for the President can tell the military to attack almost anything he wants - that is why the Congress passed the War Powers Act to attempt to limit the timeframe in which they could do things of that nature without reporting to Congress. Certainly they have appointed oversight committees, and have put other reporting requirements on the President and other military staff to try and keep tabs on what is going on - but their ultimate authority over the military is either based on funding, or removing the President from office by impeachment. There are a lot of other strictures on how the military can be used in the US to limit the President's authority to perform certain actions - but even those can be removed by declaring martial law in extreme circumstances.

Shrug. I understand the military just fine having served in the past. One of the first things they do is go over all the relationships between the military and the government and who can command who to do what, where and under what circumstances.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Military swears an oath to uphold what? The
> Constitution.

Let's look at the oath:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Didn't see anything about obeying orders from Senators or any other Legislative Branch employee.

> The Constitution defines the Federal government as
> what three branches? Executive, Legislative and
> Judicial.

Yes, and the Department of Defense is in what branch?
ding ding ding, Executive. You are getting the hang of this now.

> The President cannot declare war. Congress can.
> The President cannot finance a war. Congress can.
> The President cannot fund the military. Congress
> can.

The power to declare war and the power of the purse are not command functions. Once Congress declares war, the executive branch takes over and executes the war. Pretty simple concept. If Congress doesn't like the way the President is conducting the war. they can stop funding.

And, actually, under the WPR the President can engage in military action for up to 60 days without authorization from Congress.

> You know SHIT about the Constitution. You know
> SHIT about civilian vs. military authority. You
> know SHIT.

Shit, appears to be the main ingredient between your ears.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the question is, would a male senator correct
> or
> > even care if the general addressed him as
> "sir"?
>
>
> Probably not "sir," but surely if "Mr." was used.

Oh, I see we are comparing apples to oranges now. It all makes sense - dumbass.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Shrug. I understand the military just fine having
> served in the past. One of the first things they
> do is go over all the relationships between the
> military and the government and who can command
> who to do what, where and under what
> circumstances.


Once again you say "command." I said "civilian authority." They are two different things.

I have a title for her. Civilian CUNT!

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Didn't see anything about obeying orders from
> Senators or any other Legislative Branch
> employee.
>

Take a look at the Constitution. It says that the military must respect the authority of "elected officials," with the President being the Commander-in-Chief. Since the military swears to uphold the Constitution, it must respect elected officials...including members of Congress.


>
> Yes, and the Department of Defense is in what
> branch?
> ding ding ding, Executive. You are getting the
> hang of this now.
>

That's why you have never seen a General testify before Congress.

Ding, ding, ding, numbnuts.


> The power to declare war and the power of the
> purse are not command functions. Once Congress
> declares war, the executive branch takes over and
> executes the war. Pretty simple concept. If
> Congress doesn't like the way the President is
> conducting the war. they can stop funding.
>
> And, actually, under the WPR the President can
> engage in military action for up to 60 days
> without authorization from Congress.
>

Did I say "command functions?" No.



>
> Shit, appears to be the main ingredient between
> your ears.
>

Shit, as in "I know my shit." Yes.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No idea what's going on, did not watch the
> video,
> > but a general has worked harder to get to their
> > position than a senator. Fuck politicians.
>
>
> It doesn't matter who worked harder. The military
> reports to civilian authority, not the other way
> around.

The Military does not "Report To" civilian authority - not in the sense you were implying here. They report to the President and are under his authority. There are laws that require the military and President to report their activities to Congress, but Congress can't throw a General or other military member in jail just because they want to, or dismiss them from service other than at the discretion of the President or proper military authority.

Just because you tried to use this line earlier - now you are trying to change what you originally meant to defend your original misinformed conclusion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2009 02:32PM by Registered Voter.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > the question is, would a male senator correct or
> > > even care if the general addressed him as
> > "sir"?
> >
> >
> > Probably not "sir," but surely if "Mr." was used.
>
> Oh, I see we are comparing apples to oranges now.
> It all makes sense - dumbass.

+1


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Capt. Obvious pretty much summed it up. Each members of the military force is subordinant to his/her superior officers, the President as Commander in Chief and his designated representative (the Secretary of Defense and the respective Secretaries of the aremed forces branch). Art. II, Sec. 2. There is NO subordinant link to Congress. None.

When Nancy Pelosi wants to fly on a US Air Force Gulfstream V, she has to ask for permission of the Air Force. When Charlie Rangel wants to fly up to New York City in a HH60 to impress his district thugs, he needs permission of the Air Force or the Army. They do not have the authority to say, I'm going to fly to New York, have a chopper ready for me.

WTL, you really, really need to leave the civics to the informed ones.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The Military does not "Report To" civilian
> authority - not in the sense you were implying
> here.

DoD never reports to Congress? Really. Hmmm. And you need to stop confusing what I "imply" and what you "infer."

> They report to the President and are under
> his authority. There are laws that require the
> military and President to report their activities
> to Congress, but Congress can't throw a General or
> other military member in jail just because they
> want to, or dismiss them from service other than
> at the discretion of the President or proper
> military authority.
>

Sorry, but it's in the Constitution...

3) Military Power
The Congress is responsible for defending our country by establishing a military force. The organization, arming, establishment of military laws - and seeing that military laws are enforced, belongs to Congress. Military power is shared with the president who is considered the Commander in Chief. However, the power to declare war is granted to the Congress.


> Just because you tried to use this line earlier -
> now you are trying to change what you originally
> meant to defend your original misinformed
> conclusion.

You really, really need to read up on the Constitution.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Didn't see anything about obeying orders from
> > Senators or any other Legislative Branch
> > employee.
> >
>
> Take a look at the Constitution. It says that the
> military must respect the authority of "elected
> officials," with the President being the
> Commander-in-Chief. Since the military swears to
> uphold the Constitution, it must respect elected
> officials...including members of Congress.
>
Bullshit. See above and below. Note also that Congressmen and Senators take oaths of allegiance to protect the constitution.

> >
> > Yes, and the Department of Defense is in what
> > branch?
> > ding ding ding, Executive. You are getting the
> > hang of this now.
> >
>
> That's why you have never seen a General testify
> before Congress.
>
No, its because Congress is authorized to provide for the funding of the various military branches. They do not have veto power over the actions of the military absent declarations of war.


>
> > The power to declare war and the power of the
> > purse are not command functions. Once Congress
> > declares war, the executive branch takes over
> and
> > executes the war. Pretty simple concept. If
> > Congress doesn't like the way the President is
> > conducting the war. they can stop funding.
> >
> > And, actually, under the WPR the President can
> > engage in military action for up to 60 days
> > without authorization from Congress.
> >
>
> Did I say "command functions?" No.
>
No you basically stated that any member of Congress is supreme in rank and statute above any military service personnel. That is simply not the case. The heirarchy of rank is to one's superior officers and to the President and his designates.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> WTL, you really, really need to leave the civics
> to the informed ones.


3) Military Power

The Congress is responsible for defending our country by establishing a military force. The organization, arming, establishment of military laws - and seeing that military laws are enforced, belongs to Congress. Military power is shared with the president who is considered the Commander in Chief. However, the power to declare war is granted to the Congress.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > The Military does not "Report To" civilian
> > authority - not in the sense you were implying
> > here.
>
> DoD never reports to Congress? Really. Hmmm. And
> you need to stop confusing what I "imply" and what
> you "infer."
>
> > They report to the President and are under
> > his authority. There are laws that require the
> > military and President to report their
> activities
> > to Congress, but Congress can't throw a General
> or
> > other military member in jail just because they
> > want to, or dismiss them from service other
> than
> > at the discretion of the President or proper
> > military authority.
> >
>
> Sorry, but it's in the Constitution...
>
> 3) Military Power
> The Congress is responsible for defending our
> country by establishing a military force. The
> organization, arming, establishment of military
> laws - and seeing that military laws are enforced,
> belongs to Congress. Military power is shared with
> the president who is considered the Commander in
> Chief. However, the power to declare war is
> granted to the Congress.
>
>
> > Just because you tried to use this line earlier
> -
> > now you are trying to change what you
> originally
> > meant to defend your original misinformed
> > conclusion.
>
> You really, really need to read up on the
> Constitution.


By your logic, Congress also is supreme to the Judiciary (an Article III branch of the consitution), because Congress appropriates funds for federal courts and sets salaries for Federal judges.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ITRADE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > WTL, you really, really need to leave the
> civics
> > to the informed ones.
>
>
> 3) Military Power
>
> The Congress is responsible for defending our
> country by establishing a military force. The
> organization, arming, establishment of military
> laws - and seeing that military laws are enforced,
> belongs to Congress. Military power is shared with
> the president who is considered the Commander in
> Chief. However, the power to declare war is
> granted to the Congress.


They establish, but they do not control.

The sections you quote are not in the constitution. You're citing "The Powers of Congress By Phyllis Naegeli".

Those are not the words of the Constitution. Stop the misinformation campaign.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2009 02:46PM by ITRADE.

WTL is taking the Vince approach to this topic.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> Bullshit. See above and below. Note also that
> Congressmen and Senators take oaths of allegiance
> to protect the constitution.
>

What's your point? The relationship of the Military to Congress is defined in the Constitution. The Congress has civilian authority.


> >
> No, its because Congress is authorized to provide
> for the funding of the various military branches.
> They do not have veto power over the actions of
> the military absent declarations of war.
>
>

Actually, pulling the plug on funding IS veto power. If the Congress decides the Military doesn't need an Air Force, the Congress can make that happen.


> >
> No you basically stated that any member of
> Congress is supreme in rank and statute above any
> military service personnel. That is simply not
> the case. The heirarchy of rank is to one's
> superior officers and to the President and his
> designates.

I said that the Military must respect civilian authority and that the Congress is part of that civilian authority. I said nothing about "hierarchy of rank."

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> By your logic, Congress also is supreme to the
> Judiciary (an Article III branch of the
> consitution), because Congress appropriates funds
> for federal courts and sets salaries for Federal
> judges.


It's not "my logic." The balance of powers specifically state that the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary are on equal footing. The military does not technically belong solely to any one branch and must respect the balance of powers as outlined in the Constitution.

They don't have to respect shit. Let me give you two examples to prove this point, since you need an education.

#1 If members of Congress had authority over the military, they'd be able to requisition military equipment for any purpose Congress deems necessary. They can't and they don't. As I said earlier, when Nancy Pelosi wants to fly on a G-V out to California for the weekend, she has to ask for permission from the Air Force. That is NOT authority over the Air Force.

#2 When Ronald Reagan died, the control over all functions relating to his funeral, his procession, his lying in state, and all activities were placed under the Control of the Army's Military District of Washington. The MDW TOLD the Congress through the Speaker of the House what was to be happening and when. Not the other way around.

With respect to funding, your statement is plaing wrong. "Actually, pulling the plug on funding IS veto power." Again, as I said before, Congress has the authority to fund the Federal Courts. But as we all know, Congress does not have the authority to control the courts.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> They establish, but they do not control.
>
> The sections you quote are not in the
> constitution. You're citing "The Powers of
> Congress By Phyllis Naegeli".
>
> Those are not the words of the Constitution. Stop
> the misinformation campaign.

I'm citing a grade school text because you people can't seem to fucking get that what I am saying is correct...


ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

Maybe I need to track down a School House Rock segment or something.

Yes, you may all agree, but what you are agreeing on is WRONG.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> With respect to funding, your statement is plaing
> wrong. "Actually, pulling the plug on funding IS
> veto power." Again, as I said before, Congress
> has the authority to fund the Federal Courts. But
> as we all know, Congress does not have the
> authority to control the courts.


I hate to tell you, but you a just wrong. I know this flies in the face of what you learned from Rush Limbaugh, or whoever. But the Congress does have civilian authority in relation to the military. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Ms. Boxer was being a total bitch about the situation. Doesn't matter which way you cut it.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTL is taking the Vince approach to this topic.

The difference is, I am right.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ms. Boxer was being a total bitch about the
> situation. Doesn't matter which way you cut it.




Seems like a good place to end this discussion. I don't personally think what she did was that outrageous, but others do. So be it.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Take a look at the Constitution. It says that the
> military must respect the authority of "elected
> officials," with the President being the
> Commander-in-Chief. Since the military swears to
> uphold the Constitution, it must respect elected
> officials...including members of Congress.

"Respect" is not the same as "civilan authority." Where does it say the military must respect the authority of "elected officials?" Here is what it does say: Congress shall have the power to:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

None of these constitute "civilian authority." All Congress does is lay the framework for which the Executive branch exercises its civilian power over the military.

"Civilian Authority" is laid out exactly where it says it is - Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

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;



> >
> > Yes, and the Department of Defense is in what
> > branch?
> > ding ding ding, Executive. You are getting the
> > hang of this now.
> >
>
> That's why you have never seen a General testify
> before Congress.
>
> Ding, ding, ding, numbnuts.

Do not confuse oversight authority with civilian authority.