English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If there is a real distinction between these two terms, please explain it.

2007-05-01 08:00:01 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

Wow. We seriously need to invest in education in this country.

During TIMES OF WAR the president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He is not Commander in Chief of the United States, unless you consider the country to be a military dictatorship. The difference is vast - a military needs commanders, a free civilian population does not in any way need a "commander."

Get it?

Oh, and to the fellow who claims that "withdrawal dates" from Congress are unconstitutional, you're completely wrong. Congress is empowered to declare war and make treaties. Congress is therefore fully within its Constitutional authority to declare an end to conflict in Iraq. Period.

2007-05-01 08:08:01 · answer #1 · answered by wineboy 5 · 1 0

He is the Chief Executive of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the Militia when called into federal service.

The US as a whole cannot have a "Commander in Chief" because that is a military title.

2007-05-01 08:03:38 · answer #2 · answered by kmerian 3 · 4 0

He's President of the United States, meaning he's the political head of state. He's also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, meaning that he makes the really big decisions on what the military does.

2007-05-01 08:02:57 · answer #3 · answered by Richard S 5 · 3 1

Commander in Chief of the military and Chief Executive of the country.

2007-05-01 08:04:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Commander-in-Chief of the United States civilians is tantamount to a dictator. I believe the Constitution means Commander-in-Chief of our military. The buck and final decisions need to stop somewhere, not with a war czar but with the leader of the free world and of the US.

2007-05-01 08:14:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

like it really is been reported u . s . a . protection force spending is over six hundred billion 2d international protection force spending is china at 100+ bn. the most stepped ahead technologies we've 34 air craft vendors while china has below 3 lowly stepped ahead air craft vendors. no longer to teach U.S. armed civilian militias and a civilian gun possession of 100 and ten guns in accordance to 100 human beings. Militias with Armored workers vendors and prepared protection force techniques to boot as gangs that are extra effective armed than maximum international protection force. it will be a chilly day in hell if the U.S. were to be invaded. something round 35-40% of protection force spending and 40 5%+ of international gun possession it will be epic even though it would not be achievable. luckily lobbying from unnamed communities has allowed for the civilian disarmament of alternative international places it will be very not undemanding to take u . s . a .. China and all its protection force might want to no longer take our civilian inhabitants on my own concepts you i am going to upload Russia to that mission, we would nonetheless win.

2016-11-23 20:36:14 · answer #6 · answered by casco 4 · 0 0

“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.”

Commander's tell their units what to do and where to go.
So "withdrawal dates" from Congress are unconstitutional.

2007-05-01 08:06:09 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 3 2

commander in chief of the US would be a dictator. I'm beginning to think the executive branch is on it's way there.

2007-05-01 08:20:53 · answer #8 · answered by Gary W 4 · 2 1

he is commander and chief of the armed forces only he main responsibility is the security of the American people even though they try to run your life that is not there main job

2007-05-01 08:04:13 · answer #9 · answered by djz552000 1 · 3 1

Both, sort of. Commander in Chief is one of the many titles of the Presidency, and refers to his status as leader of the Military.

2007-05-01 08:02:48 · answer #10 · answered by Beardog 7 · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers