Question...

Whenever someone says "Commander-in-Chief", being that it's a soley military title, "of the armed forces" of the nation in question is ASSUMED. Stop being pedantic little fucks playing semantic games. Bush is Commander-In-Chief of the UNITED STATES.
 
Grind said:
nobody. the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces.
Click to expand...
Of which nation? There is a certain assumption that CIC is speaking of the military. Such semantic argument is based on the fallacy of ignoring a common understanding. The phrase "Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces" is simply shortened to CIC of the US.
 
Stupid fucking children.

We hear, on a daily basis, that The President is THE "Commander-In-Chief", WITHOUT clarification.

Year by year, our populace knows less and less about how our government works.

Year by year, there are those who want to assert that our Executive Branch is MORE and MORE like the KINGS of old.

Get a clue.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Stupid fucking children.

We hear, on a daily basis, that The President is THE "Commander-In-Chief", WITHOUT clarification.

Year by year, our populace knows less and less about how our government works.

Year by year, there are those who want to assert that our Executive Branch is MORE and MORE like the KINGS of old.

Get a clue.
Click to expand...

The three-branch model was clearly designed after britians monarchy. The king, the parliament, and the judges. The parliament and judges were made slightly more powerful, and the executive became indirectly elected. But having one central figurhead like that, naturally, people are going to start thinking less and less about their actual administrative funcitons and more and more that they're the dictator. Like children who walk up to mayors and ask for extravagent gifts.

It's why I think the presidency should be abolished. All modern presidents are usually elected based on their LEGISLATIVE agenda, rarely how they plan to do their actual job. They use the prestige of the presidency to give weight to their ideas and to bully the legislature. Worst thing is the loyalty that people start developing to this person, epitomized in perfectly by Brittany Spears: 'Trust our president in every decision' - as if you HAVE to follow him, because he knows best.

I think that if we are to have an executive branch, it's sole purpose should be to execute the plans of congress like congress meant them to be executed. That's simple - I don't even see why that needs to be elected. And yes, this does mean I believe in the doctirine of legislative supremacy. I think the legislator and judiciary should be the most powerful branches; the executive should be a paper pushing job. Our foreign affairs should be handled by someone else entirely different.

And AC, you're "Commander in Chief" thing is stupid, ignorant child. "Commander in Chief" is a military title. Whenever you say someone is the commander in chief of a nation, it's always that they control the military of the nation. I've never heard it referenced, ever, as if the person were dictator of the country, you ignorant child. You're doing as Damo said - fallacy of ignoring a common assumption. Go masturbate to anime now.
 
The point I was trying to make is that there are those in government who seek to assert more Executive authority than The Constitution allows. One of the ways our current administration seeks to do as such is to constantly refer to the president as "The Commander in Chief", without making the distinction.

Much of the populace is not even AWARE of the distinction.

Bush and Co go so far as to argue that WHATEVER they do in the name of National Defense is legal, due to C-in-C powers that are NOT given by The Constitution. Cheney and the rest of the Neocons seek to expand Executive authority well beyond the scope of that given by The Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top