The present US president is also the armed forces' "commander in chief" with power to wage war and do things that an elected president could not do. Is this an offence against democracy? And under a certain military "order 66?" (I forget its precise number) the great commander can dissolve congress and abolish constitutional rights and rule unilaterally. Is this democratic?
2007-10-03 07:29:27 · 12 answers · asked by celtish 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I would say no, not a dictator
Just a military industrial capitalist lynch-pin
he's just the idiot figure head for the big money machines calling the shots ... see Cheney - new world order
2007-10-03 07:36:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 6⤋
"Is this democratic?" If your statement was true, it would not be. It however has very little in common with the truth.
The President has always been the Commander in Chief. This is nothing new and certainly not started by Bush. 'with power to wage war and do things that an elected president could not do" - Based on what? The constitution gives him that power.
The president does not have the power to "dissolve congress and abolish constitutional rights and rule unilaterally". You are simply wrong here. Again, read the Constitution.
2007-10-03 14:35:20 · answer #2 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
First of all this is crap that you are either making up or you've been duped into believing. Your response will tell us which you are.
You claim that the power to "wage war" is not constititional! Look at the constitution and see the truth. Congress does not have to declare war for the president to "wage war".
The great commander??? The president has to follow the constitution just like everyone else. If he could declare martial law nationwide then Congress gave him the power. Therefore it would be constitutional. However, George Bush being a better person than you would not do that. Hillary however...
Watch what you wish for, you may get it.
2007-10-03 14:37:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 3⤋
Wow, you're such a moron. The President cannot "wage war" as you so moronically say, he can't do a thing unless Congress votes to allow him to do so. If I'm not mistaken, Congress DID vote to go to war, even the "wonderful" Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it. And yes there are certain powers the President can take where he does not need Congressional consent, but he has not exercised ANY of them. Everything he's done and is doing was approved by both the House and Senate.
Know what you're talking about before you open your ignorant mouth.
2007-10-03 15:04:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
no he's not, a dictator by definition is a person who takes the government either by force or slandering to the local government with intent of ruling it for their own gain.
2007-10-03 14:36:03 · answer #5 · answered by Rick K 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Obvious you are ignorant of the role of commander in chief...go back and read the Constitution...or is that too much for you?
2007-10-03 14:42:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Your question gives the impression that liberals all failed their high school US Government classes.
2007-10-03 16:11:33 · answer #7 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You've got to be either very ignorant or very foolish and have certainly never read any history about real dictators.
2007-10-03 14:34:54 · answer #8 · answered by Sean 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
School must be out. The kids are home.
2007-10-03 15:06:32 · answer #9 · answered by convoiceofreason 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
you got the first syllable right :o)
2007-10-03 16:33:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋