In the North Carolina convention, Iredell said: ∿rom the nature of the thing, the command of armies ought to be delegated to one person only. E LLIOT, T HE D EBATES IN THE S EVERAL S TATE C ONVENTIONS ON THE A DOPTION OF THE F EDERAL C ONSTITUTION 393 (1836). In the Virginia ratifying convention, Madison, replying to Patrick Henry’s objection that danger lurked in giving the President control of the military, said: Would the honorable member say that the sword ought to be put in the hands of the representatives of the people, or in other hands independent of the government altogether? 3 J. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.ġ11 May, The President Shall Be Commander in Chief, in T HE U LTIMATE D ECISION-T HE P RESIDENT AS C OMMANDER IN C HIEF (E. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. As commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. The answer then given was, that though the president might, there was no necessity that he should, take the command in person and there was no probability that he would do so, except in extraordinary emergencies, and when he was possessed of superior military talents. 113 In 1850, Chief Justice Taney, for the Court, said: His duty and his power are purely military. The consent of both houses of Congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the actual command. But it was urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it. Hamilton said the office would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the Military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy. 112 Story wrote in his Commentaries: The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted. The Limited View.-The purely military aspects of the Commander-in-Chiefship were those that were originally stressed. 111 But the principal concern here is the nature of the power granted by the clause. From the evidence available, it appears that the Framers vested the duty in the President because experience in the Continental Congress had disclosed the inexpediency of vesting command in a group and because the lesson of English history was that danger lurked in vesting command in a person separate from the responsible political leaders. Surprisingly little discussion of the Commander-in-Chief clause is found in the Convention or in the ratifying debates.
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF Development of the Concept 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 Office, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. In the event that the commander is killed or otherwise indisposed, another general is sometimes chosen to act as an temporary commander-in-chief.Section 2. The commander is not only placed in charge of the army's various generals but can delegate other military commanders to function as executives or deputy generals.
There are exceptions to a commander-in-chief being either a handpicked general or the supreme commander of the kingdom's military such as experienced strategists or even political leaders. The commander-in-chief is traditionally either a general or Great General appointed by the king and his war council.
0 kommentar(er)
