Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Do you think Bush has the authority to send more troops to Iraq without the approval of Congress?
Today the president said he has the authority to send more troops to Iraq even if the Congress disallows the "surge" (i.e. escalation).
Do you think he really has the authority to do this?
When you answer, bear in mind that the Constitution gives exclusive authority to wage war to Congress - not to the president.
Also bear in mind that "Commander in Chief" is a civilian position, not a military one. It was made that way by the founding fathers to ensure that the actions of the President in wartime were subject to approval by the representatives of the people in Congress.
Please - no hatred or intolerance of other people's views. Try, if you can, to give a reasoned response one way or the other. I am interested in reading informed opinions, not venomous diatribes from EITHER side.
That's EITHER side. Let's keep it fair and balanced, OK?
As of 01/15/2007, there's one thumbs-down vote for this question. So far, that's only one biased person who is against fair and balanced dialogue, and would rather practice prejudiced, intolerant, partisan politics.
That's not bad for an internet forum - only one un-American posting to date.
7 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Yes he does. Congress, however, can refuse to fund them, but then they are in the catch 22 of "not supporting the troops". So reality will be, he'll send them, Democrats will stamp their feet, complain on TV, yell and holler (as well as offer no ideas of their own) and when it comes down to the vote, they'll fund it to "support the troops". Its called politics and they are all in it neck deep.
- ?Lv 71 decade ago
Yes. Congress exercised its authority in voting to go to war. Of course, since Congress also can exercise control over the purse-strings, bi-partisan support is optimal.
Maybe why the president is only sending 20,000 troops, when many more would be better.
- oatieLv 61 decade ago
I believe you touched on the dilemna at hand. This is not war in the traditional sense - it is very subjective, new territory, and the rules have all been changed, as the Dodge commercial says. Problem is that no one really knows what the new rules are, and there is much gray area, and making up of rules as go along. How do you declare war on an idelology, such as "terror"?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
yes
The Constitution of the United States gives the title to the President of the United States, who "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" (See the 1941 Declarations of War[1] against Japan and Germany for how this call is made). The title commander-in-chief has been used from time to time to refer to powerful regional U.S. military leaders (such as CENTCOM), but the United States abolished all local commands-in-chief in 2002.
The governors of the several states are also commanders-in-chief of their states' respective National Guards and other military forces, except when those forces are called into active federal service. In 1947, the National Security Act made the President, as a consequence of the creation of the United States Air Force, also the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force of the United States, by extension.
Although the United States presidency was modeled upon the kingship of Great Britain, and the title of Commander-in-Chief was unlikely to have been understood to confer upon the President any powers additional to those inherently held by a Sovereign, the title has increasingly come to be perceived as being a peculiarly military position. This has led to a blurring of the distinction between the President's civil and military responsibilities. It was, for instance, the basis for the trial by military commission of Dr. Samuel Mudd. The American presidency thus departs from the civilian basis of virtually all other republics.
In the United States, the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 added a new level of commanders-in-chief (CINCs). Under Goldwater-Nichols, regional CINCs were created to bring a local supreme commander to a conflict, the most well-known of which was CINC CENTCOM, who was Norman Schwarzkopf during Operation Desert Storm.
On October 24, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that the title of "Commander-in-Chief" would thereafter be reserved for the President, consistent with the terms of Article II of the United States Constitution. Armed forces CINCs in specified regions would thereafter be known as "combatant commanders," heading the Unified Combatant Commands.
As of May 2006, there are ten Unified Combatant Commands. Five have regional responsibilities, and five have functional responsibilities. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands from the President and Secretary of Defense, but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous4 years ago
He has all of the capacity interior of united states of america, he's the Commander in chief. Congress has the capacity to evade him by way of fact they administration the "handbag strings," yet George Bush, as President, controls the defense force.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You must be forgetting Dead Eye Dick.
Dove hunting anyone?
Go big Red Go