2006-12-21 17:45:20 · 6 answers · asked by Sam o 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
i dont know where country you came from but most of the constitution grants the president to be commander-in-chief of the military. It means, he is serving two position: head of government and state, and the highest ranking military officials.
With these powers, it is logical to vested the president with that power provided that there is a just cause to do that, i.e rebellion, invasion, etc.
Depending on the constitution, there is a safeguard in order to avoid the abuse of discretion and power.
2006-12-21 22:37:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a little more involved in that, but it's the stroke of a pen that finalizes the decisions made for the masses. Without a real precedent for the considerations and appropriate cause for martial law--he may try to install it under vague terms and it would probably stand until the Supreme court got a hold of it--but who would want to wait one moment for something like that to be argued?
2006-12-22 01:57:41 · answer #2 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because no one realised that one day a hairless monkey would hold the office... twice.
2006-12-22 01:53:16 · answer #3 · answered by moonrat1984 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Read the constitution....
2006-12-22 02:05:22 · answer #4 · answered by YahooVista 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it aint my prez i guess because he is there prez
2006-12-22 01:49:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually, he doesn't.
2006-12-22 01:48:45 · answer #6 · answered by SatanicYoda 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋