well actualyt this is a good question. our goverment is made to seperate the power of the country equally. so differnt goverment syatems ( life federal and stae) hav diffferent amounts of power. an example is that the president canmt tell a governor what to do. and a governor cant order the military around either
its better this way, it lets people focu on their job more than another persons (usually).
2007-01-14 14:54:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You've opened a HUGE can of worms...known as Federalism with that question! Although I don't have the time to do a dissertation right now for you (yes, one could actually write a book on what you've asked), there are some simple things to know.
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our land. It establishes how we operate this nation. Some tidbits from this important and groundbreaking document include:
1) the three separate and distinct branches of governmetn
a) executive (President, executive agencies such as DoD, Justice Department -- includes FBI, CIA, etc)
b) legislative (Congress -- House and Senate)
c) judicial (The Supreme Court, Judges -- federal and state/locally elected judges)
2) the concept of federalism, which simply means that there isn't a clear hierarchy where states are underneath a central national government. Rather there are instances where there is national supreme authority, and cases where there is only state authority. For example, President Bush cannot set the speed limit in Texas at 55 mph, no matter what he does. He can only convince the State of Texas to do so through bartering (even threatening to withhold federal funds!). In fact, the states hold more powers than the federal government does in our day to day lives because the powers not expressly granted to the central government are reserved for the states...or the people. (That's paraphrased from the Constitution).
Military generals are part of the executive branch, and they serve the SECDEF and the President (who is the ultimate authority for the military). So, a Senator may not tell a military member what to do in his/her day to day operations. The Senate may act within their constitutional authority to hold hearings and to summons Generals, etc. The Congress also approves rank promotions for General officers (at the President's request).
Generals cannot tell Mayors what to do without the President declaring "Marshall Law" in a wartime environment. Mayors are in charge of cities/municipalities, and that power is given to them in their state constitutions. States have the power to implement their own constitutions, so long as it doesn't negate any of the big Constitution! Mayors cannot tell Generals what to do either. They are in a separate chain of command.
Governors may only command their Guard troops. In those cases the Governor may instruct the general what to do, if the general is in the Guard unit. The Reserves are, however, federal, and they do not fall under a Governor's authority.
So, military people do not ever instruct civilian authorities (in the United States) on what to do. They operate in a support role. For example, National Guard troops on the Mexican border serve as support for the civilian police forces and Border patrol down there. They are never in charge of operations.
2007-01-14 16:22:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by baldeaglepatriot 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Here's a short answer to a complicated question.
Senators can't tell anyone what to do. They vote on bills that are proposed before them, and that's it. They have no authority to order anyone to do anything.
The only civilians who can tell the military what to do are the President, the Vice President in the absence of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the respective Secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.
Mayors may have the authority to tell the police what to do, but that depends on the organizational structure of the town/city/borough.
2007-01-15 01:44:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by Team Chief 5
·
0⤊
0⤋