U.S. President NOT Commander in Chief Until Congress Calls Him

Everyone assumes as soon as a new U.S. president is sworn into office that they automatically become Commander in Chief of all of America's military.  This is NOT true according to the US Constitution.

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States says,

“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.”

The key phrase in this is “when called into actual Service of the United States.”  So the question then lies in what does it mean “when called into Service?”  To get our answer, we must look to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States which states,

“The Congress shall have Power…

To declare War…

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”

As I read the Constitution, Congress has the authority over the military and only Congress can declare war.  That also means that Congress is the body of government that calls the president to become Commander in Chief.  Until that time comes, the president has no vital role in the military and its use.

In the case of President Barack Hussein Obama, Congress has never called him to the role of Commander in Chief and therefore he has no legal or constitutional oversight of US military forces.  That responsibility lies with Congress, not the White House.

And the way I’ve seen and heard about how the Obamas (Barack and Michelle) treat military personnel that are assigned to them, I don’t think they want him to ever be Commander in Chief.  They both treat military personnel as if they are third class citizens not worthy to wipe the Obama’s feet.

I just wish someone in the military and Congress would actually read the Constitution and follow what it says.


  • Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

    The Federalist is the foremost authority on the meaning of the Constitution by those who wrote the Constitution, and it says:

    "THE President of the United States is to 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." The propriety of this provision
    is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the
    precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to
    explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled
    the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the
    military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the
    direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the
    exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction
    of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common
    strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive
    authority
    ." -- Federalist 74

    "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United
    States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of
    the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount
    to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval
    forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the
    British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING
    of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would
    appertain to the legislature." -- Federalist 69

    Congress declares war, but the Commander-in-Chief makes war, having immediate control over the military in order to respond to threats.

    • Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

      By the way, the article above quotes the relevant part of the Constitution which says nothing of the Legislative authority OVER the military; Congress cannot issue orders for military movements, for example.  Congress is not in the military chain of command.  It is involved only in the support of the military, not the combat operation of it.  Money is Congress' weapon against abuse.

      • Screeminmeeme

        Mr.Incredible, in Jesus' Name......

        Thanks for the information.  Very helpful in understanding who is in control of what.  Unfortunately, Congress has hugely abdicated its responsibilities and the Executive branch has assumed greater powers.  Don't know when or if this is going to change.
        We DO know that as long as Obama has his hands in the mix, he will do whatever he  wants to do and to hell with the Constitution...which he has said needs to be changed anyway.

        • Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

          I agree, Screen', that this guy is especially irritating.
           
           

        • Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

          I'm just not sure that "when called into service" means that the president's "Commander-in-Chief" title waits on Congress' determination whether to respond militarily, given that Congress is not in the chain of military command.  In other words, can the president respond to some military operation that threatens us, or our "friend[s]," without waiting for congressional permission which takes committees, panels, floor debates and votes?  I'd say "yes, he can."

        • Glen

          "THE President of the United States is to 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."
          Read the words and pay attention to the comma separating two distinct portions. The militias of the several states are never under the command of the President "UNTIL CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the united States. Once called into service of the US, the president then becomes their commander in chief - just he is ALREADY the commander in chief of the army and navy. Until that time, the MILITIAS remain under the control of their respective governors.

          Congress establishes the procedure, the mechanism, the structure,  for calling the militias into federal service, just as congress provides for the monetary support of the military. Congress has NO roll in the COMMAND of the army, navy, and any state militias that have been called into federal service - that roll rests solely in the hands of the Commander in Chief. Whether you like him, hate him, or don't care either way, President Obama IS the Commander in Chief, period. Only way to change that is to change our entire form of government by re-writing the Constitution.

        • Fwhjr1941

          Yes Glen, I agree with your disection of that sentence. Commas are very important as they, and could more proof of that be needed when reading the preceding posts. No one listenes anymore and obviously was not taught how to read correctly either. Blame the teachers, the parents and the teacher's unions for not doing their jobs.

        • Myke794

          This was pretty much all explained in the article.

  • DavidKramer

    Yes, the Congress is supposed to have the purse strings to control the Executive. But, how is that going now over the last three years? No budget only continuing resolutions funding this un Constitutional regime. The Republicans if they had some balls, would file an Article of Impeachment against Reid and Pelosi for not passing a budget in three years.

    We have been in one Constitutional crisis after another with this regime and the Rethugs do nothing!

    • daveveselenak

      Ditto...ditto, that's why we are experiencing an emerging new Hitler and the "Re-PUNK-licans" are afraid to say as much. THEY NEED TO GROW A PAIR! 

      • Mattwm

        I think the Tea Party will continue to grow within the Republican Party, and hopefully, all the RINOs will retire and make room for the true constitutionalists

  • shecoff

    I had to defend this fact with people who only understand what they are fed.  Last week, 3 people were trying to tell me the exact opposite of what was reported here.  I fully agree with this article, and thank you for writing it.

  • Paulam777

    Just another example of this administration's total lack of disregard for our Constitution and everything that it stands for.  Obama has done so many things that goes against our Constitution, since he's been in office, its mind boggling.  His contempt for this country is palatable.  What I don't understand is how he keeps getting away with it and why someone doesn't call him on the "Red Carpet" so to speak about everything he is doing?  Surely there is someone in our government who can stand up to this administration and dispute his actions and overstepping of authority.  

    • DockyWocky

      That ought to be "total lack of regard for our Constitution..."

      It don't matter anyway. Without enforcement, it might as well be a Chinese Fortune Cookie.

      • http://www.bcsig.org/ Aric

         Actually, under the War Powers Act (Resolution), Congress has allowed
        the President the ability to use military forces for up to 90 days
        before a Congressional Act of War needs to be declared.  This act should
        be challenged since Congress should not be able to give this authority
        away to another branch of the Government.  If a commission can not be
        made up of congress as was proposed under the FECA act in the 1970's,
        but the Court determined that a commission is an Executive authority,
        then Congress can not give its Constitutional Authority away.  Beyond
        this, the War Powers Act allows a war act without a declaration of war. 
        Source:http://loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

        Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed by President Madison,
        in his Commentaries on the Constitution recounts Elliot's Debates of the
        Ratification of the Constitution, saying "The propriety of admitting
        the president to be commander-in-chief, so far as to give orders, and
        have a general superintendency, was admitted.  But it was urged, that it
        would be dangerous to let him command in person without any restraint,
        as he might make a bad use of it.  The consent of both houses of
        congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the
        actual command. "  Section 1486 (1833 Edition)  Source (page 340):http://ia600409.us.archive.org/5/items/commentariesonco03stor/commentariesonco03stor.pdf

        • Fred toth

          Someone should tell Ron Paul about this.

        • dondehoff

          All too many just "don't get it",  Modern-day warfare is almost instantaneous. Sea launched missles can strike within but a very few minutes,  terrorist activity can start without any warning. We have to adjust to the conditions that prevail. As anyone can see,  the 90-day period does not cover the missle/terrorist problem.  Yes. some will want to keep the 9o-day window (even though the logic behind it, evaporated years ago). But having said all of that, the situation  does not give the President the latitude he now demands in getting UN or NATO approval before congress.I am wondering what will be the event(s) that trigger congress to get off of their behinds and start impeachment action; just what does it take!!

        • Gregg Weber

          It didn't take 90 days to get a Declaration of War against Japan. War was declared on 8 December 1941 at 4:00PM Washington DC time.

        • Gregg Weber

          And just which Amendment is this War Powers Act found. Lower laws can't override higher laws, true?

      • DrSique

        "We The People" have no right to whine about the lack of regard for OUR Constitution. It rests upon all of us to maintain this wall of protection between the government and the people and we have been remiss. We have sat quietly by while the ever expanding federal government usurped the powers that rightfully belong to the states, municipalities and, even, with the people. Now, it is up to each and every American to moblize and cleanse OUR government of the filthy, power mongering deceivers who dwell in all positions of authority. We can not focus solely on the White House but make certain that there is another purge of Congress like that of 2010. We must make absolutely certain that OUR government again fears the people and not the reverse. We have failed, for a generation, to rein in this wreckless and sordid gang of criminals who we sent to OUR bidding. Now, the job has become many times more difficult but, it must be done. Freedom demands it from us.

        • Ccoleman5

           AMEN!  It is not just Obama, but Bush, Reagan, Clinton, et,al; who, along with Congress, have done this to us.  Not just Democrats, but Republicans as well.  We forget that our founding fathers did not want political parties at all (sorry, Tea partiers).  The problem we have is we say "My senator is okay--it's that Other Senator who is the problem.  We have Obama, who does not have a clue, and Romney, who is so rich he does not have a clue  (and no, being a successful businessman does not qualify you)  Also, being Governor does not automatically qualify you to be president -- just because you can manage a Burger King does not mean you can run a bunch of Burger Kings. 
          The Congress and the President cannot do anything about jobs, because if I run a business and because of the economy, I reduce my staff and have the remaining staff do twice the work for the same amount of money, so I keep more in my pocket,  does not mean that just because I am making more money, I am going to hire more--I won't I will either reduce the staff more and have the remainder do three times the work, or I will just keep things at status quo and do nothing except count my money. 

          We have 4 things we need to do to improve this country:
          1. Take back all of the monies we give to other countries
          2. Pull our troops back to patrol our borders
          3. Work with Businesses to find ways to make them wealthy and benefit all of us
          4. Get rid of the mountains of government regulations and forms.

    • steveyb

      And W and Dick Chaney were paragons of following the constitution? 

      • wayne74467

        And troll stevey chimes in with "it Bush's fault."

        • Republicae

          Baby Bush was nothing more than a pawn in the hands of those other "Socialists" the Neo-Conservatives whose ideology stems directly from the Trotskytes of the late 60s-and early 70s who left the Democratic Party and infiltrated the Republican Party. Bush set the stage for all the abuses that Obama now commits, Bush laid the legislative ground-work on which Obama now builds. The truth be known there is very little difference between the policies of Baby Bush and Obama, Obama is continuing down the same path as Bush began, corruption is rampant, the government has lost it sense of the People and is in the hands of those whose interest are elsewhere!

          Bush and Obama are cut from the same cloth, Obama however is just slightly smarter than Bush, but not by much! They both have no clue about economics, they have tunnel vision when it comes to government solutions and the entire Obama Cabinet is on par with the Bush Cabinet when it comes to both domestic and foreign policy. Both don't seem to be aware of just how much damage their policies did and are doing to this country, they seem to believe that the government is magical and can actually solve the very problems the government created in the first place.

      • Ron

        The answer to your question is, yes.  Bush had the approval of Congress for the conduct he employed.

        • ThomNj

          I would guess that hussein's lead follows President Bush's call from the Congress; so as much as I detest hussein - I think we have to say the call follows the office and its successor.  No?  Anyone know if that is or is not the case?

      • Paulam777

        They may have not been perfect but they weren't trying to radically change this country into a government controlled, socialistic country.  We've always gone back and forth with both parties but no one has ever radically tried to change this country completely until this administration came into office.  There is a big difference in their agendas.

        • Republicae

          Strange, but Bush and his cohorts did more to destroy the fundamental foundation upon which this country was founded than any other Presidential Administration before it other than FDR, of course Obama has just continued to lay the heavy bricks of Statism on top of what Bush and Cheney started!

          The Neo-Cons in the Bush Administration were and are socialists, just another branch of the despicable ideology, instead of the Alinsky branch, they were of the Strauss branch! Nevertheless, their goals are similar!

    • Chuck

      There is someone, but the ones who do call him on his disregard for the Constitution are rediculed or just plain ignored. Both Ron Paul and Dennise kasinich have both called Bush and Obama on their disregard for the Constitution. However, we have a Congress that is either complicit because of party loyality or lack the guts to stand up against these abuses.

      • Paulam777

        Then what recourse do the "People" have?  We are supposed to be able to depend upon the people we elect but if they aren't doing their job then what can be done besides a revolution??  So many important positions in our government are now held by anti-American, corrupt people.  If our elections are getting corrupted with so much voter fraud what chance do we have?  Americans have never really taken seriously the importance of who they vote for into office and now we see the mistakes and travesty of such apathetic attitudes.  

        • Republicae

          First, We The People, through the States created this federal government by medium of a Compact called the Constitution. The States have never lost their Character as Free, Sovereign and Independent State Republics, all due pressure should be placed on the State Legislatures and Governors to press the power of Interposition, Nullification and if necessary even the threat of Secession from this Compact which has been effectively invalidated by the actions and usurpation of a centralized and consoilidated government that has its own self-interest at heart instead of the well-being of this country and its People!

          Each of the States must assert its power as part of this federated government and in fact, the People will have a much more effective voice if they make their will know to a more localized government such as the State Legislatures and Governors. It will be far more potent if there are 50 State governments fighting the abuses of this now illegitimate federal government and will, if carried out according to the Constitutional Principles in terms of the Respective sphere of actions and delegated powers effect a greater front of resistance that could not be achieved by individual action. Unless the People regain the Power of their States, wiping out those who have grown complacent and compliant to the sugar teat of the federal whore in Wahington, D.C. then there is little hope other than open rebellion and resistance; and, since people are not naturally inclined toward revolution it will take a great del of misery to propel them to action!

        • dondehoff

          A lot of meaningless rambling. Seceding from the Union by any of the "48" would be a disaster for the state(s) and for the rest of our country. It is because of our "union" that we have been able to survive in this turbulent world. Any state that leaves would cease to exist within a very short time, Each new little "country" would have to get approval to travel through  or fly over the neighboring states/countries, have their own entire governmental system (subject to the same problems they now have), and most do not have all of the necessities to survive without continued interstate (country) commerce--which may or may not be available. I don't know where you live, but the odds are you could not come and visit me here in Colorado. Remember "cliches" usually are based upon tried and true events; "United We Stand, Divided We Fall". If that don't register, how about, "...Because, Without America, There Is No Free World!" (Thanks, CFP). That last slogan should rule  anything and everything we contemplate doing to the  "greatest social and political experiment that ever happened in the history of the entire world---The United States of America!"  We are far from  perfect,  but we stand head and shoulders above all others. Let us concentrate on "fixing it" and not changing it. Our constitution needs some "tweeking" and we have the proven   process to do that, called  the amendment.      

        • Republicae

          Quite the opposite is true, first the trubulent world you speak of is a direct result of over 100 years of intervention into over 200 countries by this federal government, what you see is the creation of this and other governments as they have sought to control resources through military means rather than peaceful trade and cooperation. You ignore a great deal of both history and practical economics when you assume that these States cannot exist outside of this now defunct Union where the federal government has violated and continues to violate the very Compact that created it to benefit the States and the Citizens of those States. You ignore your own Constitutional history and the general principles of how People govern themselves, federations and confederations generally form between Free and Independent States.

          What has happened is exactly what the Founders of this country feared, instead of being a Beacon Of Liberty, Standing Head and Shoulders above other countries this government has squandered the prosperity of its People and future generations for a grasp of power through dishonest and dishornorable means. It has deliberately bankrupted this country in search of global power and control, it is on the verge of an economic and monetary disaster that will cause all of us so much misery that even you eill come to curse those you now trust. This government is even now implementing its own default through an attempt to inflate its debt away, but what does that mean for you and your family? Well, if you are depending on this government to SAVE you think again, you and every other person in this country is expendible.

          Again, you ignore so very much! Do you think that interstate commerce depends on government or lines drawn up on a map, really? Do you think that markets are the creation of governments or tgat commerse is somehow an invention dependent on government regulation and manipulation; markets, commerce and even money preceded government, all government tends to do is take as much and control as much as it can in order to gain power.

          This government is rapidly destroying this country, it is in the process of passing all manner of legislation that will take every last ounce of Liberty away from the People, or hadn't you noticed? Sorry, but your veiws have blinded you to a very present reality and to the historical foundations upon which this country was founded as well as the principles upon which the federal government was created by the States! Read Jefferson and Madison, read why this government exist....it is not for the reasons you espouse, it is not only our Right, but sir it is our Duty to throw off such government when it no longer acts in accordance to those principles upon which it was founded!

          It has violated the very Compact that created it and would destroy all of the Constitutional Rights and Liberties of the People if possible! Sorry, but if that is what you want to leave to your children then I pity them! If you just think that it is "not perfect, but its all we got" then you and your children we get just that, a government that is not only not perfect, but that does not resemble the government of these united States of America! Sorry, but I would rather die than relinquish those Blessed Rights that my fathers fought and died for to keep this country Free! And if that takes the dissolution of a now defunct Union that no longer functions as a Republic of Free ans Independent States, then so be it!

        • Walt

          Texas is in a very good position to secede.  It is in the Texas Constitution that the State has the right to do so.  Texas has natural resources, food, cattle, natural gas, oil, deep water ports, militias, and money.  If they secede, they can do very well.  It is a long way to fly anywhere South if you have to go around Texas.

        • dondehoff

          "Wait", you still just don't "get it". Most of what you say about Texas is on-point, but seceding would open "Pandora's Box" and who knows what would be the end result. And, more importantly, you overlooked the Canada Free Press (CFP) slogan, "...Because, Without America, There Is No Free World". Again, anything and everything we do, as a country, has to revolve around that life or death slogan. Remember, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall". Also, the constitution has some words about "insurrection". Also, all of the surrounding states just might "boycott" Texas, as too their existence would be at stake. Focus, man, focus on the "big picture". Also, consider the mass "migration", to and from Texas that would take place. Also, what happens to all of the corporations and business' that are owned by out-of-state (country?) entities. The mere "leaving" of our many military and other government agencies would surely add to the chaos---Just the administrative and legal and logistic aspects (paper-work) created by secession would take many, many years to to resolve and that is just for Texas; reflect upon the the additional chaos, if say another 4 or 5 or perhaps more states, do "likewise"---The Muslims would love it, and quickly move in and take over, and then, yes Texas would again "be lost" (Everything, "all for naught"). Think man, think! The bottom line probably would be, WW III with all kinds of WMD. I say it once again, "...BECAUSE, WITHOUT AMERICA, THERE IS NO FREE WORLD"!!!!!!!! Even an idiot (or a Phd.) can understand that, if they take time to reflect. Wow, I have scared myself. Excuse me, while I go, "lock & Load", let out the guard-dogs and lock the doors.

          Subject: [godfatherpolitics] Re: U.S. President NOT Commander in Chief Until Congress Calls Him

    • Wingwall26

      "We the people" must be involved at all levels of government. If the Congress doesn't do the people's will, then fire them and elect new ones. But so many vote by "Show me the money." that it is difficult to get a moral and conscienous representative. Start by learning the rights and RESPONSIBILITIES of the electorate.

      • Wambowabbitt

        You are correct, "WE THE PEOPLE" vote their wallets and country be damned! Obama's total disregard for the very Constitution he swore an oath to maintain and the ho-hum attitute of the people means we no longer have a Constitution or would seem so! The entire Congress, both houses and both parties need to be replaced, and replacing them with an empty box in the corner of the room would be a "HUGE" improvement! They hold hearings on some law breakers(Eric Holder comes to mind) and it amounts to nothing everytime! If they get jailed another crook pardons them, just watch Obama turn his Illinois Governor(currently residing here in Colorado prison) loose before he leaves office! We are precariously close to a Civil War in this nation and that will be tragic for anyone holding elected office as well as for many citizens! At least it would eliminate Liberals and gang bangers from our streets! The founders set up a system that would only work with "HONEST" people, not lifetime politicians! Do try to have a pleasant day anyway LOL!

        • http://twitter.com/BradNova Brad Nova

           What do you mean Obama? He is not the one that started these unconstitutional wars.

        • rick0857

          Pay attention there will be a short quiz at the end of the discussion. It's about the treatment of our military by the usurper in the White House.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_O24NYT5HOQNDEJ3TUT5QOTLOF4 TM

          Democrats approve of these wars arse hole government raise brat.

        • fred toth

          What unconstitutional wars?

        • rick0857

          Friend I want to be in the foxhole next to you when the shit hits the fan!

        • Guest

          What do you mean? close to a Civil War in this country,we're  going down with hardly a whimper.

      • F8tul

         well then get involved.. .make yourself known and heard to the government a bunch of idiots "elected"... don't sit on the sidelines, but get your voice heard... do something besides whining before it is too late...

        • Sandra Schools

           F8tul - You are very unkind. The fact that Wingwall26 posted here is evident that (he-she) is attempting to do something about it. And furthermore, you have not a clue as to what the poster is actually doing to fulfill the responsibilities talked about in the post. Let me ask you, What are you doing besides wasting your time putting others down in such a manner? If you are actually doing something to help the  cause that Wingwall26 is concerned about, why not help people, including the poster,  by making them aware of specific things you are doing by giving them ideas of what they can do. It is people like you that we do not need now. This situation is too serious for such as you. And if you are just mocking the poster, then you are seriously in trouble before God, along with all the rest of those who are righteous in their own eyes.

    • notashyster

      When has anyone stood up to the government over their usurpation of power since the CSA tried and failed.

    • http://twitter.com/BradNova Brad Nova

       To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

      Wow - so this means the military cannot be used to invade and the last several wars this country has been in have been unconstitutional.

    • Dale Weaver

      Why Odumbo is away with it is because the citizens of this country are sitting on there brains and don't any guts or back bone, they had better wake up and help the few of us that are fighting to get our country back. Every one has to get both feet in their members of congress backs and lay down the law and make sure they conform to the letter of the Constitution.

    • LWIZZEL

      I normally like Godfather politics, but this is sheer nonsense, as any first year law student could explain. Obamnination hates the USCON because it limits him, but this is absurd.
      The Presidnet is CiC immediately upon election. He can EXERCISE the functions of the office only when there are active duty military. We now have a full-time active duty military, so he is always and permanently CiC.

      The phrase: 

      "As I read the Constitution, Congress has the authority over the military and only Congress can declare war.  That also means that Congress is the body of government that calls the president to become Commander in Chief.  Until that time comes, the president has no vital role in the military and its use."

      Is an utter non sequitur. The power to declare war has absolutely nothing to do with the CiC power. Separate articles. Separate branches of government. Simply no interaction between the two. If we have a military in federal service (a bit hard to argue that, no?) the Prez is CiC even if the forces are not deployed to combat.  Ie, in peacetime.   One can argue (properly IMHO) that the PRez cannot send to forces to war w/o Congress' approval, but he is still CiC inpeacetime.
      This is simply an ignornat mishmash that ignores not only Constitutional legal history, but the plain language o fthe FF and the records of the Constitutional convention.

  • john cummins

    yes, the key word being someone...

  • Blake

    You are an idiot, and idiots like you, unfortunately, will ensure that Barack Obama is re-elected, because many people in the middle do not like brain-less right-wingers.  The conservative philosophy is actually the true intellectual political philosophy, as the liberal philosophy is a simpleton approach to life.  However, there are many kooks, such as yourself, who hang out on the conservative side, and you make us look bad.  Now to your issue.  The "when called" phrase is dealing solely with the calling of the states' own militias to serve the federal government.  It is not dealing with the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard.

    • Mattwm

      i would agree with this.  being "called into service" could simply mean, elected president

    • tom s

       hey blake,  whom are you disagreeing with?  I really don't know how to take your entry??    I think the producers of our constitution were trying to prevent exactually what obama & his cohorts are currently doing, as they ignore the constitution & the law & put in place their agenda, which is the opposite of what this country has been for over 200 years....

    • PepperdotNet

      I explained the error without resorting to namecalling. I know you can do better.

      • Blake

        Agreed.  Sorry.

  • Broere

    There are ALOT of things that are not being followed...this just adds to the list.  My question is how or why are these issues being swept under the carpet, just adding for the reasons for impeachment even stronger, but you don't even hear a peep about that issue, which is currently being brought up in the Courts in Georgia.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

    If you look at the recent past with Democratic President they all have treated the miltary and secret service like third rate citizens.   In contrast the Republicans have generally a very good review including Ronald Reagan coming down to the kitchen to play cards with the secret service people.   If you look at Clinton in his second term he does not even acknowledge the salutes from the military when getting off the helicopter or aircraft.

    • DockyWocky

      In the make-believe world, the Praetorian Guards generally off the emperor. Our's doesn't have the cajones to do that.

    • Frank1737

      Clinton was nothing but a cowardly, draft dodger that should have b een thrown in prison!!

      • DMurphy

        I for one,am at a total loss as to why NO ONE IN THE CONGRESS OR SENATE.....HAS EVER
        CALLED THE THING IN OUR WHITE HOUSE ...ON HIS TOTAL DISREGARD FOR OUR
        CONSTITUTION....It is obvious he would just as soon wipe his feet on that historic paper...
        WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF ??? I READ ONCE THAT HE AND HIS CRONIES HAVE
        THE MEMBERS OF CAPITOL HILL SHAKING IN THEIR SHOES....BECAUSE OF HIS HENCHMEN AND CHICAGO POLITICS....AND THEY WOULD NOT DARE SPEAK OUT AGAINST HIM...I GUESS THAT IS TRUE.....TOO BAD...THE US...USED TO BE A COUNTRY
        OF MEN ...REAL MEN....WHO BACKED DOWN FROM NO ONE...WHAT HAPPENED ?ARE THEY REALLY AFRAID OF THAT COWARD ...WITH THE YELLOW STREAK DOWN HIS BACK AS
        WIDE AS A HIGHWAY LANE...HE IS NOTHING ...NOTHING...; PHONEY...WHO HATES THIS
        COUNTRY...AND WANTS REVENGE FOR HIS COMMIE DADDY....AND MOMMY....GO TO HELL OBAMA....GO TO HELL.AND FAST...PLEASE...

        GOD BLESS AMERICA .....AND GET HIM OUT OF OUR WHITE HOUSE....AS SOON AS
        POSSIBLE......!!!

    • Wambowabbitt

      CIVILIANS DON'T SALUTE! Clinton was never called by Congress to be Commander in Chief as the Constitution so stipulates, so he was simply a citizen! But he could have waved but he was probably searching the crowd for"MONICA"with his pizza! LOL

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

         Even if he was not the Commander in Chief  he was still the President so unfortunately he is due that as head of state.

  • Bill in Tennessee

    You're joking, right?   You "just wish someone in the military and Congress would actually read the Constitution and follow what it says"?  Since when did the Constitution matter to these folks?  If the military actually took the Constitution seriously, and their oaths they took to protect and defend it, they would have mounted a coup a long time ago and arrested the Imposter-in-Chief and tried him for treason. 

    • Mattwm

      so the question is, who did you vote for?  I voted for Ron Paul, even though I know he can't win, but he is the only candidate that respects the constitution.

    • John

      They need proof that is set in stone or concrete

  • Goodfam

    What does the constitution have to do with anything anymore.  It has been suggested to give our Constitution to Iraq since we don't use it anymore.

  • Rev. Anony Moose

                       I am glad that you shown us that!   I never seen that before!   I think I need to read the Constitution of this great country more often.   I guess with all the wars against the first and second
    Amendments it is easy to get caught up with the attacks on them and spend time looking them two
    over and almost forget what else it says!   Thank you!

  • scott2345

    Yes Article 2.2 is clear about Congress's role about war, however it does not explicitly include the calling of the President into service or to be "Commander in Chief".  One can argue whether, or not, Article 2.2 IMPLIES Congress decides what the President can or cannot do about war.

    'Calling into service', or 'calling to be Commander in Chief' can easily be construed as the election of the President to the office in the first place by the people.

  • Insurgent

    The US does not have a president.
    The US has an illegal Kenyan idiot !!!

  • e1313ruth

    Obama is ruling everything including the military.. Soon Food, water, natural resources, energy...many of the churches, the news media, etc....One thing he cannot control is the elect of Christ...And they are doing everything in their  power to expose his evil agendas...

  • amazingoly

    If the political winds would shift to the ugly way, most doubt OUR military would side with him anyway.  Hope it never comes to that. 

  • Pnp

    READ the Constitution?  There was a Congresswoman for Texas not long ago that didn't know if the Constitution had ever been printed.

  • Parkertnc

    After reading this article and agreeing with it completely, it sound to me like the Officer that refused to follow orders to deploy based on Obama sending the troops is right and should be vindicated.

  • Nexgenesis

    Somebody needs to tell Congress.

  • http://profiles.google.com/pudbertsavannahga Mort Leith

    I just wish someone in Congress would actually read the Constitution and FORCE this idiot who thinks he's Diktater to follow what it says.

  • PepperdotNet

    In my opinion, the author commits a slight misinterpretation. My reading of the Constitution and Federalist lead me to believe that the clause "WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States" is referring to the immediately preceding object "militia of the several States" because the militia is usually in the service of the state which formed it. The president is always commander-in-chief of the army and navy. On occasion the militias may be called to serve the United States, in those cases the president is additionally commander-in-chief of the state militias.

    Regardless of the president's status as commander-in-chief, he does not have the authority to actually declare war. That responsibility belongs exclusively to the Congress and no "resolution for executive use of power" gets them out of it. This is one of the things Ron Paul has been talking about for 40 years and finally people are starting to listen. We have not had a legally declared war since 1945.

    So yes, the president is commander-in-chief, meaning it's his responsibility to direct the military action in LEGALLY DECLARED conflicts. However, this does not change the fact that his actions in unilaterally declaring war on this or that individual, group or nation are still blatantly unconstitutional and usurp the rightful power from the peoples' representatives.

  • DockyWocky

    Well, before you get all uppity and that, what makes you think that our imperial leader has anything to do with the Constitution at all?

    As far as Obama is concerned, there ain't no Constitution as long as you ignore any Constitution.

    See above for reason why this country has already been compromised beyond recovery. Obama and his handlers figured out long ago that the Constitution is only a Constitution if someone enforces a Constitution.

    So far in his career, not a sigle authority has stepped up to the plate, pulled out a shooter, and said "Whoa, boy!"

    If nobody enforces it, it might as well be shredded.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/VBBCYNZUJPMNVGYK45HXRD7ZJ4 A Real American

    The Marxist power grab of all agencies and even private entities is purposed to destroy our Republic form of government.  There is no "democracy" when the illegitimate president removes the Constitutional power of the Congress, and should be viewed as treason.

  • Insurgent

    This liar is an embarrassment to the White House.

  • vidshooter

    When you actually read Article 2 Section 2, it says that the President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy...... and of the State militias, but only when called into service of the U.S. Congress calls forth the militia. So, it would be very informative to see how the law establishing the National Gaurd handles this issue.....

  • rb18181

    The way I read the statement in the Constitution, the portion,"when called into the actual Service of the United States” applies to the state militias being called into sevice for the Unted States -- and does not mean that the President has to be called to be Commander in Chief.

  • Jim Buzzell

    Amen!

  • NPC

    "Transformation" of the country is in full swing people. This is also known as "hope and change"
    This hope and change was not meant for the people.  It was more like,  "I hope I can", and the dummies re-affirmed with "yes we can", and the man smiled.

  • suzy2

    CONGRESS NEEDS TO GET OFF THEIR WIMPY ASS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT BARRACK OBAMA.  I DON'T THINK THEY EVEN KNOW THEY HAVE THE POWER.  IF THEY WOULD JUST GET THEIR HEAD OUT OF OBAMA'S CRAPY ASS, WASH OFF THE SH-T AND DO THEIR JOB, MAYBE THEY WOULD DEVELOPE BRAINS. 

    • San Francisco Pete

       Yes, you're absolutely right, congress needs to do that.  So lets get off our duffs and elect a congress that will actually do that.  We keep wailing and complaining, but come the elections, it's always the old gangsters who get re-elected.  And a people deserve the government they elect.

      • John

        The republicans need a veto proof margin in both houses,  that way the clown even if reelected he would not be necessary & even less useless than he already is

        • John

          Oh Yes I neglected to mention that the danger level would go way down as he couldn't get much passed unless the republicans though it was good for America, but this clown is also slippery so he would have to be watched

      • suzy2

        The biggest problem with voting is There is so much voters fraud.  Do you really think the elections are trust wothy?  I know it's the only hope we have but I doubt elections have been honest in years.  Obama was elected purly by voters fraud and he seems to be going for fraud again.  That's why he and Holder does not want voters ID implemented.  We have another hope that Obama will not be allowed to be in the election due to so much question about his elegibility.   I have read reports that Obama may not be allowed to run in the election.

    • John

      The senate is controlled by democrats, so just how do you propose that they convince harry reid & the rest of them that he needs to be impeached?  Not only that but if he is found not legally holding the office it would be much better as everything he has signed into law would be invalid.   Much better way to do it

    • Wambowabbitt

      Some of us still dream don't we! If anything was to be done it would already have happened! I resent the fact Obama will maintain a totally illegal office and go back to Chicago to his GANG" drawing a very healthy salary for life, and when he actually expires he will take the "FREE" funeral among our fallen heros in Arlington, where he would not even lay the customary wreath on memorial day but flew to Chicago with his family! Are some of you still proud of that puke?

      • suzy2

        I am hoping after the election when Obama is no longer in the Whitehouse he will be prosecuted for his crimes and his financial assests will be taken to repay our country for money he has stolen.  This can be done if the right people are elected and hammered by the people into making a lawful move..

  • diana

    congress should order the military to ARREST ob and all the senate and his czars, now or the military do its job and ARREST ob the senate and the czars for TREASON

  • Capnsnuff

    Actually, you all are misreading the provision. The phrase "When Called into the actual Service of the United States" refers only to the provision regarding the "Militias" of the "Several States" . Thus, The President has no direct peacetime authority over the various militias, which are controlled by the constitutions of their respective States, unless they are called into Federal Service. He IS the commander in Chief of all Federal forces; I will admit that this distinction fails to give me relief from constant dread of having this administration in control of such deadly force...

    • Chuck

      I am not misreading this provision of the Constitution. You are misreading the provision. It does not state, the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the Militias of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. It clearly states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militias of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States." There is a comma separating "when called into the actual service of the United States" from the rest of the entire sentence. There would be no need for a comma if it was referring only to the "Militias of the several States." The President is not Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy unless they have been called by Congress into the actual service of the United States. In other words, unless Congress Declares War. Only Congress has the power, "To Declare War; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy." In fact, according to the Constitution, the only military which is to be maintained for more than two years at a time is a "Navy." Moreover, the Constitution clearly states Congress has the power to "raise and support Armies," not the President. If the President was meant to be Commander in Chief  during peacetime, there would be no need for Congress to "raise Armies."  
      Type your comment here.

  • dondh

    How can true Americans support this anti-American, anti-US Constitution illegal muslim president???  I do not recognize this muslim as my president!  How about you???

  • James Stevens

    Why am I seeing more and more articles scrubbed from this website.....

  • Wisesooth

    The US President of the United States (POTUS) has Air Force 1, an airborne command center.  A miilitary person is nearby with launch codes and a retinal scan to unlock them with no Congressional intervention.  POTUS appoints the Secretary of Defense that rules the Pentagon's Chiefs of Staff.  The US Congress ratified treaties that included the birth of NATO.  Did this treaty ratification and others in fact permanently activate and enable POTUS's Constitutional license to be Commander in Chief?

    Did Harry Truman have the right to declare war on North Korea in support of South Korea's defense by calling it a police action?  Did FDR violate the US Constitution by his lend-lease program to assist the UK in WW-II while US isolationists pondered whether or not to declare war on Nazi Germany?

    There is a legal term called "lachase",  that means "You slept on your rights."  Is Congress doing anything to hold POTUS accountable for manifold violations of his oath of office and doubtful eligibility to be POTUS?  Is Congress held liable by the US Supreme Court for violating their collective oaths of office for not doing so?  Is the US Supreme Court sleeping on its rights?  Is anyone in Federal Government upholding and protecting the US Constitution in the performance of their elected or appointed duties?

    Perhaps "Lachase" should take on an expanded interpretation by the legal profession, don't you think?

  • dondh

    This illegal, muslim person we call president of the US NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED NOW!  NOW!  NOW!!!  He is doing everything possible to destroy America and our way of life!!

  • Wisesooth

    Not while his buddies control the US Senate.

    • Chuck

      Just because the Democrats control the Senate doesn't mean members of the House cannot or should not file Articles of Impeachment. The House is has a responsibility to bring charges, in the form of Articles of Impeachment when violations exist. Then, it is up to the Senate, along with the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court, based on the Articles of Impeachment, to convict. This is just another excuse Republicans in Congress, especially the House have used to abandon their responsibilities and their oath of office.

  • Balto2

    It seems to me that the National Guard units of the separate states are being called up to 3rd ad 4th deployments to foreign soils, adding to the regulars who may only have 4 years base time.  Yet, these NG's, many of them signed up for duty within the US boundries after 9-11 to help secure our own states and in the end, many of them are losing life and limb in foreign countries.   This was going on with President Bush, but at least he treated the military with respect, not this man who is occupying our WH and the Oval office. 

  • Nlk224

    The constitution as stated above says: President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and (when called) the militia of the several states in actual service to the United States. This is referring to the militia of each individual state. He (the President) is the commander in chief of the U.S. Army & U.S. Navy when he takes office; but not the militia of the states. The militia of the states must be called into service in defense of the United States and then & only then is he the Commander in Chief of the  militia of the several states.  Please don't twist the words to meet your own agenda. We have enough of that from Obama and his cronies.

  • jaxum

    Obozo has a Napoleonic delusions and thinks that he is all powerful; and congress just sits on their collective behinds and allows him to make them into an irrevelent joke. I believe that he has taken the first step in declaring martial law to take place if he loses the election, (if he even allows the election to happen) Obama's ambition is to declare himself president for life, with all of the dictates and lose of freedom of the citizens in this country that accompany that situation. He would very likely get away with it  because the only actions that people will take is to post their objections on the web.

    • Hawkerone

      Sorry jaxum , I don't think so. The millions of Americans that have rearmed themselves in the last three years have a different idea about losing their freedoms. I do post but also keep my guns at hand and pratice my shooting ability almost weekly. A lot of other people also are doing the same. We know what may happen , hoping it will not, but are prepared if it does.

  • pduffy

    This is the correct reading of the constitution. In the time of peace, technically there is no 'commander in chief', just the congress, but since the advent of the 'blitz kreig' invented by Adolph Hitler and the invention of WMD's  (the lightning war), congress decided to give the president 'quick authority' to retaliate aganist such a strike. This power has been misused as an excuse to BYPASS CONGRESS to engage in any and all kinds of wars which were NOT lighting wars, but political manuverings to control the governmnents of other soverign nations! The 'clear and present danger' is that Mr. Obama has his finger on the nuclear button, and congress can do nothing to stop his use of it because they have already given him this authority by handing him the 'black box'.  You can now see why the founders used these words because they KNEW what such concentrated power could do to corrupt a nation, and the use of its military for political purposes.

  • Steve

    Luke 10:18And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
    In ancient Hebrew the word for lightning is barack, the word for heaven or the
    heights is bama and to connect the words either an “a” or an “o” is used.

    “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” – Barack Hussein Obama – Audacity of Hope

    2 Thessalonians 2:3 (King James Version)
    3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

    Political Correctness a term first seen in Mao’s Little Red Book, a communist engendered abomination that is instituting censorship little by little.

    “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”- George Washington

    Carl Marx, once wrote that, the goal of the Communists was to quote,. “enter into men’s minds and cast God down from his throne.”

    Matthew 12:31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

     

    In ancient Babylon their economy was based on usury.
    “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest. Exodus 22:25
    Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. Ezekiel 18:13
    Usury is unlawful; expressly prohibited by GOD!
     Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that only the Congress can print and coin money! 

    The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped thru congress during the Christmas break with the majority of it’s members absent. 

    The Federal Reserve is self serving and privately owned in violation to the Constitution, charging interest on illegally printed money. Money printed from nothing!
    In America On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. Five months later A UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY was MURDERED BY COMMUNIST! 

    “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest. Exodus 22:25
    Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. Ezekiel 18:13
    Usury is unlawful; expressly prohibited by GOD!
     
     
    In ancient Babylon their priest sacrificed babies to their gods baal, and molech.  
    In America the communist under their socialist programs have sacrificed over 50 million American babies to their god satan!
    Leviticus 20:2-5
    2Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel , Whosoever he be of the children of Israel , or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel , that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
    3And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
    4And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
    5Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
     
    Luke 22:35-36 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
     
     
    Jeremiah 50:16Cut off the sower from Babylon, and him that handleth the SICKLE in the time of harvest: for fear of the oppressing sword they shall turn every one to his people, and they shall flee every one to his own land.
    Jeremiah 50:23How is the HAMMER OF THE WHOLE EARTH CUT ASUNDER AND BROKEN! how is Babylon become a desolation among the nations!
    BABYLON = the HAMMER and SICKLE!
     
     
    Jeremiah 50:14 “ Put yourselves in array against Babylon all around, All you who bend the bow; Shoot at her, spare no arrows, For she has sinned against the LORD.

    All nations compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD will I destroy them. Psalm 118:10

    “The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!”. George Washington

      2 Timothy 2:15   Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 

    Jeremiah 48: 10Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

    Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying , Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down , and shall be found no more at all.

    “NO KING BUT KING JESUS!”
            

     

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeramiah-Townsend/100000138670843 Jeramiah Townsend

    Lets take that one step further.

    "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.”
    It states the president shall be "x" when called into "y".  If we're being logical, we can only presume that article 2 is a limiting statement to bind the presidents ability to be commander in chief at certain times.  The fact is that the President, by merely being president, is in actual service to the US.  If we were to take this as "the president is always the commander in chief of the military", then there are a lot of easier ways of saying that.    But the fact that the constitutional framers phrased it the way they did, clearly shows they wanted to limit the Presidential powers.

    • MarMac2768

      Actually, that is not true. The framers did limit the Presidential powers in other places in the Constitution, but the role of CinC is one of the few provisions that gives the President very broad power. These men (the framers) knew that wars were not fought by "committees" and such, they are fought by men who have A LEADER to lead them into battle. They also realized the importance of vesting the power of the military in CIVILIAN authority and not a military man. It makes the military leader accountable to "the people".

  • Jbeach2646

    These sorts of observations, while containing partial truths, are really specious arguments.  At the time the Constitution was written, after the Revolutionary War, the militias and the Continental Army  which were largely comprised of volunteers did not constitute the permanent, ready, active-duty forces such as we have today. " When called into actual service" refers to the militias, NOT the President.  Article 2, Section 2 stipulates that the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.   The phrase "when called into actual service" is a wording that was applicable in 1792, regarding the nature of the armed forces as they were comprised at that time and which is archaic.  Where is there a precedent in recent history where the President was "called into actual service?"    It is one thing to be antipathetic to President Obama, many of us are.  It is another thing to use illogical arguments to bolster one's position of antipathy.  It is not only weak, it is incorrect and provably so.   The separation of powers argument regarding executive authority over the armed forces has been raging for decades because of the police actions since Korea in which the armed forces have been ordered into combat service by the President.
    This is clearly an abuse of authority based on the provision of the Constitution, but has been logically argued in favor of the chief executive because of the necessity of timely military responses which would be precluded or impeded by the nature of congressional debate which would precede such authorization or declaration of war.

  • Mark_in_Sealy

    I'm a Marine Corps veteran and graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy.As much as I hate Obama being our Commander-in-Chief, I have to admit that the phrase "when called into the actual Service of the United States" refers to our troops, not the president. 

    Basically, anytime there are troops serving, the president is the CinC.By the way, a survey held during the 2008 elections showed that about 78% of the Marine Corps voted McCain over Obama.

    • cobrabite

      Unfortunately, a lot of those votes never got counted.

  • Wisesooth

    I never won other mindsets over to my way of thinking by insulting them.  Perhaps you could learn "diplomat speak."  A professional diplomat can tell a person to go to h*** in a way that they look forward to the trip.

  • steveyb

    No one in congress has the courage or integrity to perform such an act.  I doubt enough of them are abel to read and interpret the constitution.  all congress wants is to get re-elected and continue the gravy train.

  • tomyris

    And not just the Constitution...."History comes full circle. In the aftermath of Vietnam and the midst of Watergate, liberal Democrats passed the War Powers Act as part of a broad assault on presidential powers. The act reached the end of the line with a liberal Democrat in the White House, who wanted to avail himself of the full sweep of his powers."

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268973/obama-kills-war-powers-laugh-rich-lowry

  • Commentator

    I'm really on your side on most things, but I think you've associated the final clause of the sentence with the wrong object. I do believe that the "when called into the actual Service of the United States" is reference what is just prior to it ... "and of the Militia of the several States".

    And my clarification also supports the fact that the "Militia" is not part of the US Government's Army and Navy.

    However, the President is the head of the US "Adminstration" which is to administer or carry out the decisions of the Congress, in other words to do what Congress tells him to do. He may suggest, but not make up his own rules or do whatever he desires without approval from Congress.

    This is where Obama repeatedly violates the constitution and should be removed from office (among many others good reasons you bring up frequently).

    Thanks for your patriotic work, stay free!

  • Blair

    I remember studying this in my high school Government class thirty-four years ago. Obama doesn't think so.

  • BillLemoine

    Not too strong on your English composition, eh? The clause in question refers to the militia 'when called into service'. At all times the president is Commander in Chief of the military, or do you also question his command of the Coast Guard and Airforce because they aren't explicit? Such pettiness; such ignorance; dropouts are you? Take a course in reading comprehension and one in writing. Oh, you completed high school? Where was your mind?

    • Hawkerone

      Bill you are one class A  AH . As with any written doc. some will read into it what they want . You , with your overblown idea of your interlect , will also read into it what ever you want.  I too believe it refers only to the militia of the several states but should someone else believe other wise  I would not be so arr         as to believe I have the right to degrade them .

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roscoe-Bonnifitucci/100000459519027 Roscoe Bonnifitucci

    It is
    widespread knowledge within the inner circle of the White House that the
    Obamas treat military personnel that
    are assigned to them with disdain and contempt.  They act like
    Czars, Kings and Royalty around those troops and secret service.  The
    Obamas know the troops are American Heroes and as America Haters, are
    contemptuous of all American Icons.   A true Leader and Commander in Chief respects his or her
    subordinates.  They both treat military personnel as if they are third
    class citizens not worthy to wipe the Obama’s feet.

    America loves
    her military, police and fire protection personnel as true heroes.  The
    Obamas are nothing more than the Leftist Slime Algae he wants to heat our homes
    with when he turns America into another Socialist 3rd World
    Crap hole. 

    God Bless
    American Military, Police and Fire Protection Personnel.  God Keep
    Them All Safe.  

  • Tomtom

    You think MAYBE, just MAYBE the idiot-in-chief should read the constitution?????

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roscoe-Bonnifitucci/100000459519027 Roscoe Bonnifitucci

    It is widespread knowledge within the inner circle of the White House that the
    Obamas treat military personnel that
    are assigned to them with disdain and contempt.  They act like
    Czars, Kings and Royalty around those troops and secret service.  The
    Obamas know the troops are American Heroes and as America Haters, are
    contemptuous of all American Icons.   A true Leader and Commander in Chief respects his or her
    subordinates.  They both treat military personnel as if they are third
    class citizens not worthy to wipe the Obama’s feet.

    America loves
    her military, police and fire protection personnel as true heroes.  The
    Obamas are nothing more than the Leftist Slime Algae he wants to heat our homes
    with when he turns America into another Socialist 3rd World
    Crap hole. 

    God Bless
    American Military, Police and Fire Protection Personnel.  God Keep
    Them All Safe.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Berenice-Bauer/100000969003176 Berenice Bauer

    Such a shame that the president hasn't read it and most likely 99% of our Congress hasn't either.  Hence the awful laws that are created by our representatives and signed by the president.  obama my say he was a Constitutional lawyer but I bet he never read it except to see how he could circumvent it.

  • VeeDub

    Look! I honestly despise obama. I refuse to capitalize his name or the word "President" when referring to obama. But we must be honest. He is getting away with everything because of our spineless Congress. 535 men and women of every idiosyncrasy and political view have done nothing to him, Bush, Clinton, etc, etc.

    It is the job of Congress to defend and uphold the Constitution. They don't, because they are too busy getting over on it themselves. They are THE problem in this country. You can say it's Bush's fault, or obama's fault, but truth be told the fault. ALL of the fault, lies in Congress.  It's time to quit passing the blame from President to President and put a stop to the madness.

    • tom s

       veedub,  I agree...

  • Jim S

    I think you're reading that wrong. The way I see it, the prez is CinC of the Army and Navy. But if *state* militias are called up into national service, he's CinC of them as well.

  • San Francisco Pete

    The subsidiary clause "when called called into the actual Service of the United States" refers to the preceding clause, "and the Militia of the Several States", and not to the whole sentence.  I know, they haven't taught proper English in schools for almost 50 years now, but anybody who wants to comment on what is constitutional or not, ought to at least try to use proper syntax and grammar, not only in writing, but also in reading.  Why question something that has been understood for centuries, while ignoring the fact that the last war constitutionally declared was WW2.  Question all those presidents, including our favorite president, Reagan, who committed troops to undertakings before asking congress not for a proper declaration of war, but some vague authorization not foreseen in our constitution.  Obama has admitted that his father was Kenyan and at the time, a subject of the British queen, therefore it is crystal-clear that he is not a "natural-born" citizen, and therefore not constitutionally eligible to serve as pressident.  Harp on this simple fact if you want to question his constitutionality, and don't nit-pick at tghings that are simply not true, or of questionable value.

  • dragonfFIRE01

    IF THEY ACTUALLY READ AND PAID ATTENTION TO THE CONSTITUTION BHO WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT. AS HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE AND ROMNEY WOULN'TBE A CANDIDATE EITHER AS HE WAS BORN IN MEXICO.

  • Mod_dahnsaw_e

    One sided reportage here....

  • rockFL

    I added your quote from Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution here:  “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.”  This part discusses the duties of the President.  It is clear from the quote that the President is actually the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy, but he is only the Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States when the Militia has actually been called into the Service of the United States.  Until the Militia has been called to the service of the US the President is not their Commander in Chief.  But he is, never-the-less, always the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy.  The Chief Executive of each State is the Commander in Chief of the Militia of that State until and only until the Militia is called into the actual service of the US.

    The article above is unfortunately based upon an erroneous reading of that part of the Constitution.

  • Fighterbear

    I am not a pro administration person but this is an incorrect interpretation of Article 2, section 2.  "When called into the actual service of the United States" is referring to the Militia of the several states not to the federal armed forces of the United States.  The Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force are always in the "actual service of the United States" and the President of the United States is always the Commander in Chief of the standing armed forces of the United States.  That does not excuise the fact that Congress does have several enumerated powers in the national security role that they fail to execute.

  • VirgoVince

    He ain't even THE president, why would he be CinC??  WHY can't you people separate fact from fantasy??
    He should have been ARRESTED on day one, BEFORE he botched the oath and lied thru it!!!!

  • Walkerz

    I dislike Obama and consider him a traitor . .. having said that. . .since we are at war, the President is The Commander In Chief.     The position of President bacame the commander in chief when we declared war , under Bush, therefore, the title carried over to the next President . . .just as the US being at war carried over to the next president.   Nice try, but no cigar.

  • Srgloent

    The thing you have to understand here in this report is this: 1. He is CIC, that is given to him by his position. 2. The phrase you are keying your points on "when called into the service of the United States" refers to the organized Militia of the States, otherwise known as the National Guard. When the National Guard is federalized it then comes under the command of the Commander In Chief aka the President. It is no longer under the control of the Governor of the State. It was a good argument, and one we probably all wish were true but it is not....

    • Robert

      One of the points you make and this would be up for contention and worse totally wrong. Your you referred to the militia of the states that's not necessarily the National Guard. The National Guard is actually part of our military. The term militia is an inclusive term that means "every able-bodied man". The militia was made up of the people and has such that people were required to have on hand powder and shot to come to the defense of their community, their family, and their country.

  • Robert

    I see one problem here Diaper Head Obama does not recognize the mere fact that he is only a president, be it an incompetent and illegal president, sees himself as much more than a president.
    I feel that he actually believes himself to be some form of King or possibly A Demigod. Where the reality is that he is nothing more than the Southend of a mule going North. He doesn't even make it to the horse stage.

  • Jolongus

    Didn't you all get the memo Obama disbanned and threw out The Constitution of The United States of America.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Corky-Corcoran/100002886439095 Corky Corcoran

    Once again I repeat myself that our school system has failed the American Public by failing to teach the basic history of our Nation.  Many schools only go back as far as the Civil War and then only sparingly.  Our Nation of voting, taxpaying, legal citizens are not given the basic premises of how, why and when this Nation was founded.   Today, we are more concerned with being politically correct in our demeanor and shouldn't offend the delicate sensibilities of the extreme liberals and progressives.  Let us show how mature we are in turning the other cheek and disregarding the many atrocities visited upon us by our enemies.  Let us deny the facts!  We allow the ever encroaching tyranny to overwhelm us all in the name of being politically correct!  I am happy to say that the main stream conservative, silent majority, legal taxpaying citizens are finally waking up!  We may be slow to react, but as we grow to realize that our complacency is to our detriment we do learn and will fight back.  Our complacency is being replaced by knowledge.  We are finally learning to dig deep into the wells of our history and heritage.  As our forefathers have gone before us we shall go.  I strongly believe that our country will survive.  We are a strong People and proud of our heritage.  We have made mistakes along the way, but as a child growing up, we learn and from what we learn we become the better and stronger for it.  I am proud to be an American and what America stands for.   For those that want to promote tyranny and their own self serving agendas that benefit the few I say beware!  For we, the American Patriots, are awakening to your schemes and plots and will fight you to the very end.  We have just awakened to realize that We, the legal, Taxpaying, voting Americans are uniting.  You will NOT PREVAIL!
    Have a great dayand may God Bless
    Major Daniel P. Corcoran (ret)

    • Lrhopkins

      Very well put forward, sir !  .  .  .  And I, for one , stand with you !

  • TheChristianSolution

    Nicely added perspective Giacomo. Sometimes the obvious has to be pointed out for us to truly understand it.

  • cub62

    I would not doubt it for a second.

  • TexMonty

    Congress (includes GOP) has been so lax since 1/20/2009, I recommend NOT re-electing ANY incumbent. For all its rhetoric, not ONE, ONE Congressperson has filed an Article of Impeachment, and the current occupant of thew White House is following Italian dictator Mussolini's playbook to the letter... (God help us)...

  • Choctaw326

    Since Congress has so much power than WHY is Obama and his treacherous crew Still trying to subdue the USA Constitution and not being IMPEACHED?? Maybe they are all in the same pot? Makes one think that maybe the Entire Congress should be impeached and good God fearing people put in their places!! If things aren't in the best interest of the USA and good for the USA Citizens than it isn't any good at all!! Wake up People your freedom is being slowly be eroded away!! Be awake this time as you Vote!! Don't let the USA down.

  • Jeff

    Well, this would mean that Bush wasn't the commander in chief either, as congress did not adhere to the Constitution and declare war prior to Bush invading Afghanistan or Iraq.

    But your twisted logic only applies to Obama, not Bush. Yes, you don't know anyone in the military who are assigned to the Obama's, because it is the Secret Service that is assigned to the first family. Thanks for sharing.

    Oh, and you are not a "born associate of the family" because the last thing anyone does when they are associated with the "family" is to brag about said affiliation. LMAO!

  • Lrhopkins

    I have a prayer request.  .   .   There is a lady I've known all my life.   .   .  She is very sick.   .   .   On top of that she is being abused by those she has taken care of all of their lives.   .   .   Her family is telling lies about her, and they seem to come from all sides.   .   . It just breaks my heart !   .   .  It seems there is nothing I can do alone, but maybe if we join and lift her up together, we can heal her.  .   .  She is well over 230 years old, but way too young to die.   .   .   HER NAME IS "AMERICA" .   . and I love her and have always been proud of her.   .   .  Take the time to say a prayer for her, even if it is a short simple prayer like,   LORD, please heal our land. Amen.  .   .  She loved and nurtured us for all these years, now it is our turn to love and nurture her.   .   . She needs all of her sons and daughters now.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H6YDPAOSKRKSDREHLEQBJWPMAE Val

    How can Obama sign anything,when he is not the US president.?? You can't be President if you are not a US citizen.. At this time, the USA is without a President. He can be put under a citizens arrest, for Treason.

  • http://twitter.com/Tzor Christopher Beattie

    There seems to be a flaw in this reasoning.  First, let us remember that as the founding fathers who wrote the constitution thought at the time, the federal government was to have a standing navy (written in the constitution) and the ability to raise an army when needed.  So at least one armed force is a continual force that needs a commander in chief.
     Instead, the clause seems to want to be applied to the second half of the first clause, “and of the Militia of the several States.”  This would imply that the state militia are controlled by the states unless they have been specifically called to service of the United States in which case the President assumes Commander in Chief of those forces as well.
    In modern terms, this might be used to limit power to the National Guard, but not the basic armed forces.  Still, it does sound like a nice thought.

  • Wisesooth

    @Bernice Bauer  RE: They didn't read it.  Actually, they took turns reading it in the US House as their first order of business after the 2010 elections.
    @Chuck  RE: Articles of impeachment.  Michele Bachmann introduced articles of impeachment in the US House.  The process is "ongoing"  wwhatever that means.

  • Doodlebug

    Since when has this arrogant, nose in the sir, lying dummicrat donkey EVER pay attention to the Constitution? He and his dummicrat base want to change the Constitution to reflect their ways and means. I pray that day never comes!

  • defender3

    Obama has from the onset made it clear where he intends to lead this nation.  I recognize this would be dictator and his regime for who they are! What is most disturbing to me is that we have elected conservative Republicans to office to champion our constitutuion, our time honored traditions, and everything that has made this country great but they have become timid as a mouse.  We can no longer compromise with the people who wish to destroy this country!  Call, and write your congressmen regulary and demand that they stand up for for freedom loving Americans who will not tolerate a petty community organizer to become the Dictator of the United States! 

  • crybelovedcountry_com

    I'm afraid you're off here, Giacomo, in your reading of Art. 2, Sect. 2. Yes, "[t]he Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War," not the President. You're spot on there, of course. 

    But the phrase you highlight in Art. 2, Sect. 2--"when called into the actual Service of the United States"--modifies what immediately precedes it: "the Militia of the several States." In other words, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" *and* he shall be C-in-C of the Militias *when they're federalized* but *not* when they're in the service of their individual states. 

  • victorbarney

    It does not matter one idota! Women and blacks are 70% of our population and they had already made a first-born covenant with DEATH 6,000 year ago! Now, they just want to have as many DIE FOREVER WITH THEM AS POSSIBLE; it looks like! I'm now also beginning to become more clear about abortion issues too. Just saying...

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Benjamin-Fox/1417763559 Benjamin Fox

    Sad to say, obozo will be king, has been in the works for years, will destroy this once christian nation for his little god.

    • Lrhopkins

      But it doesn't have to be that way !   .   Rather than disillusion others why not find something positive to do.  .  .  Lead, follow, or get out of the way!

  • Radman414

    Henry Clay once said, “Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees.”  When those officers repeatedly tell the public what the public can plainly see isn’t true, that trust is broken.  President Obama and the Democrat leaders in Congress have repeatedly and consistently broken this trust with the American people...to the point that the “change” for which so many had originally “hoped” has yielded an abysmal national reality (i.e., “HOPELESS CHANGE”), plus a material and substantial abrogation of:  states’ rights; the constitutionally-prescribed powers of the legislative branch; and, our individual liberties.  It is far past time for the House of Representatives and Speaker Boehner to act affirmatively on behalf of our Republic, our Constitution and “We the People.”  America cannot afford 4 more years of Obama’s promised “fundamental transformation” to a socialist state.

    • Lrhopkins

      Boehner is in on it !  .   .   .  The fix is in people.   .    .   You Tube " Proof of voter fraud in the USA from the horses mouth".   .  .  Go ahead, Google or You Tube it.  Just type it in !

  • Jay Are

    Reading this further, I believe that the article states that the President is the commander in Chief of the state Militias(National Guard) as well, IF they are called into service to defend the United States. In other words he is the CIC of the US Armed Forces, including the NG if they are called into service to defend the US, not if they are called into service by that states Governor for duty in that state.

    • A. Terranova

       My guess would be that Obama is going to try to instigate a situation where he will be called upon to act out his official duties as Commander-in Chief. There is a caveat, however. Legally he isn't the "president" of the U.S. States of America. His records have been sealed by those who chose him long ago for this position.  He was never vetted and his actual birth CERTIFICATE has never been revealed. There is no credible proof whatsoever that he is a natural born citizen of this country. Unless and until it is proven without a doubt that he is, in fact, a natural born citizen of this country, he is an imposter.

  • notashyster

    The way I read Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution is that the President is always Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy," [AND also] of the Militia of the several States, when [the Militia is] called into the actual Service of the United States."  Unfortunately the "Militia" has beeen called into the "actual Service of the United States" for a long time now. Just my take, but I'm only a country lawyer.  There are much better examples of our governments unconstitutional conduct- many more examples. It's almost harder to find examples of constitutional conduct.

  • suzy2

    As I read the Constitution, Congress has the authority over the military and only Congress can declare war. That also means that Congress is the body of government that calls the president to become Commander in Chief. Until that time comes, the president has no vital role in the military and its use.
    In the case of President Barack Hussein Obama, Congress has never called him to the role of Commander in Chief and therefore he has no legal or constitutional oversight of US military forces. That responsibility lies with Congress, not the White House.
    And the way I’ve seen and heard about how the Obamas (Barack and Michelle) treat military personnel that are assigned to them, I don’t think they want him to ever be Commander in Chief. They both treat military personnel as if they are third class citizens not worthy to wipe the Obama’s feet.
    I just wish someone in the military and Congress would actually read the Constitution and follow what it says.

  • shamus

    Unfortunately, the "when called..." phrase refers to the National Guard units of the States, not the overall U.S. Military

  • Glen

    Good Lord, when will people learn to READ? Let me repeat myself -

    "THE President of the United States is to 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." Read the words and pay attention to the comma separating two distinct portions. The militias of the several states are never under the command of the President "UNTIL CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the united States. Once called into service of the US, the president then becomes their commander in chief - just he is ALREADY the commander in chief of the army and navy. Until that time, the MILITIAS remain under the control of their respective governors.
    Congress establishes the procedure, the mechanism, the structure, for calling the militias into federal service, just as congress provides for the monetary support of the military. Congress has NO roll in the COMMAND of the army, navy, and any state militias that have been called into federal service - that roll rests solely in the hands of the Commander in Chief. Whether you like him, hate him, or don't care either way, President Obama IS the Commander in Chief, period. Only way to change that is to change our entire form of government by re-writing the Constitution

    • MarMac2768

      My Gawd!!! THANK YOU GLEN!!!1 This Giacomo guy really does need to learn how sentence structure works. You are absolutely correct. The PRESIDENT is the Commander in Chief from the moment he/she is sworn in until another POTUS is sworn in. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are ALL subordinate to HIM and no other. Not the Veep, the Speaker, NO ONE. I can't stand Obama, but Giacomo needs to take a constitutional law class. His "facts" are really pathetic!

  • vietnamvet1971

    most Dictators have a Big EGO and think they are IT and do not need to consult or ask any one what to do, Example: The Current Dictator in Chief Obozo. He makes me Sick.

  • grannylake

    A servicemen (who must remain anonymous) on the Presidential flight crew said that Obama treats the crew like waiters.  He also said that whenever the first wife is around everyone and everything becomes tense and uncomfortable because she is not only demanding, ungrateful and rude, she barks orders to the serviceman and is just unkind.
    I worded my comment with the most respectful language I could muster although I don't believe she deserves any respect. 

  • 1Mike

    "We the people" should put all that have swarn to uphold the Constitution, on trial as soon as they leave office.

    • A. Terranova

       Really? Waiting for them to leave office and then prosecuting them is a ridiculous idea. That's like saying, "When our country is completely destroyed, then we can start rebuilding".  You don't act from a position of weakness, you act from a position of strength.  Our strength lies in our commitment to principles of justice that are written down in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights! If these principles are destroyed, as they are NOW, we won't be FREE to implement any charges. We won't be free, PERIOD.

  • 1Mike

    Sorry about the miss spelling of sworn

  • http://www.bcsig.org/ Aric

    Actually, under the War Powers Act (Resolution), Congress has allowed the President the ability to use military forces for up to 90 days before a Congressional Act of War needs to be declared.  This act should be challenged since Congress should not be able to give this authority away to another branch of the Government.  If a commission can not be made up of congress as was proposed under the FECA act in the 1970's, but the Court determined that a commission is an Executive authority, then Congress can not give its Constitutional Authority away.  Beyond this, the War Powers Act allows a war act without a declaration of war.  Source:
    http://loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

    Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed by President Madison, in his Commentaries on the Constitution recounts Elliot's Debates of the Ratification of the Constitution, saying "The propriety of admitting the president to be commander-in-chief, so far as to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted.  But it was urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it.  The consent of both houses of congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the actual command. "  Section 1486 (1833 Edition)  Source (page 340):
    http://ia600409.us.archive.org/5/items/commentariesonco03stor/commentariesonco03stor.pdf

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_K47R2KNGRYXOECLVDSESRNL2ZE sam

    Obama  care  about  himself  and his  friend  that  put  him  in  power. Obama  supports  Karl  marx   ten  planks  of  Marxist  communist  manifesto.All   democrates  and 90  percent  of  GOP  are  like  the   democrate. Ron   paul  is  not  a  communist,   not U.N. supporter,and  not  a  anti American  stooge  or trojan  horse  for  the   bankers. Americans   need  to  wake  up!. The  establishment  are  Romney,Santorum, and  Newt.These  are the  pick.Romney  is  white  GOP  Obama.Santorum  want  to  copy  Obama  and  would  like  to  be  another  Bush  jr.Newt   wants  to  be a  Ron  Reagun.All  three   fools  are  communist.I  want  Obama  out  and  Not  replace   him  with another gop  copy  of  Obama.We  the   People   must  control  them  and  not other way  around( rule  of  Dictator).

  • KittyKittyKit

    That's very interesting information.  Then again, WHO set the precident of allowing the President to assume the role without being called up by the congress???  There have been no DECLARED wars since World WarII.  Everything since then has been what they call POLICE ACTIONS, not requiring a declaration of war from congress.   In POLICE ACTIONS, who is in charge of military deployments and actions.....I think it is the President, for lack of any further clarification on the subject.  I could be wrong, and would appreciate hearing from anyone who truly knows the answer.  THANKS

  • SIR JAMES

    First item congress would have to learn to read.  Then someone will need to be standing near to explain the big words containing more than three syllables and try to explain that they're not going to get paid for reading the Constitution.

  • Beamced

    I think all members of groups like V.F.W. A.L.,D.A.V., etc. should demand that Obama be Impeached they all have in their by laws that they will support the Constitution.

  • Guidepostguide

    congress is doing a bum job allowing blame-mode Obama to do and get away with anything he pleases. 

  • A. Terranova

    Finally, someone is brave enough to tell the truth.  Obama has no authority to wage war, etc., etc., etc. unless and until he gets it from Congress. Another thing, if the U.S. citizenry find itself in a position where our guaranteed rights under the U.S. Constitution are being violated and Congress does NOT right those wrongs, we the people have an obligation and a duty under the law of this land to right those wrongs.  Why do you think Obama is usurping powers (through executive order) that are not his to possess? Answer: Because no one is preventing him from doing so! There are a few like Joe Arpaio, Andrew Breitbart (now deceased, Hmmm) and several others who have been relentless in their quest for justice but the vast majority of us, especially our ELELCTED REPRESENTATIVES, who have not. That has to change now.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/LRBBJH3ZORLZBDU2D5ER2X6HTQ Rooster

    I SAY FIRED GET THE NEW GUY IN NOW AND ALL THE ONES THATS STAND WITH  THE OLD PRESIDENT MAKE THE ACCOUNTABLE JAILED FOR TREASON. THEY WERE SWORN TO UPHOLD OUR CONSITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE oBAMA ADMINISTRATION HASNT

  • rick0857

    Though what you say is in fact true, a precedent was sent long ago and has become tradition. As far as the bozo families treatment of the military, it's obvious you never served in the military because all democrats treat the military with disdain.  I served under Nixon, (only a few months) Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. Only the democrats brought moral among the troops down and carter was the worst, that is of course until now. If I was still on active duty I personally would not serve under the current occupant of the White House. I seriously don't know how much longer our country will survive.

  • BCASS2

    OBAMA IS NOTHING BUT LIAR IN CHIEF

  • Catherine Riley

    I am so VERY TIRED of seeing his face

  • joseph femiani

    poppycock obama will just make a executive decision and declare whatever he wants as long as dems control congress and so far i don't think we can vote them out .they are reading the constitution as if it were toilet paper and are putting us under their control and not the other way around.all you suckers who liked what the lieing dems tell you how about this one.get yourasses in the fields and pick cotten

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PTIF6KGUK7QASUBRKKR5A6LM2Q Tod

    Dr.Ron Paul 2012 to take back Our Constitution and Freedoms!!!

  • sean murry

    The SOB is a poor piss leader.

  • Mathis1689

    If Obama actually followed the Constitution we wouldn't be having this discussion because he wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

  • http://www.survivingurbancrisis.com/ Silas Longshot

     Oh, that tiresome old scrap of paper, that Constitution thing. Nobody in power nowdays, to speak of anyhow, bothers with that! It's so old fashioned, you know, to follow law and rule instead of just doing what ever inhell you want to do, going around congress and all is so easy! You just do it, and none of them has the spine to challenge you! And just wait until after I declare martial law around fall before the elections, man, I'm gonna love being dictator for life.

  • James Graham

     
    Don't I remember a politician stating "vote for it and then read it"? 
     
      
    If you own a home, Please read this.THIS WILL BLOW YOU AWAY The National Association of REALTORS is all over this and working to get it repealed,  before it takes effect.  But,  I am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners.  How many REALTORS do you think will vote Democratic in 2012? Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it?  That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home,  etc.  When did this happen?  It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013?   Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections?  So,  this is "change you can believe in"?  Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax. If you sell a $400,000 home,  there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes.  Does this make your November and 2012 vote more important? Oh,  you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill?  Guess what,  you aren't alone.  There are more than a few members of Congress that aren't aware of it either   I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book.  VOTERS NEED TO KNOW.===============================================================Look carefully at the 2014 rate compared to the 2013 rate EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW, NOT ONLY SENIORS.   Look carefully at the 2014 rate compared to the 2013 rate.For those of you who are on Medicare, read the following. It's short, but important and you probably haven't heard about it in the Marxist liberal media."The per person Medicare Insurance Premium will increase from the present Monthly Fee of $96.40, rising to: $104.20 in 2012 $120.20 in 2013 And $247.00 in 2014." These are Provisions incorporated in the Obamacare Legislation, purposely delayed so as not to confuse the 2012 Re-Election Campaigns. Send this to all Seniors that you know, so they will know who's throwing them under the bus. REMEMBER THIS IN NOVEMBER 2012 AND VOTE!!!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From now thru November 2012 this should be required weekly or at least monthly,Reading – BY ALL WHO VOTE!!! Did you notice who Obama threatened when he wasn't getting his way on raising the debt ceiling?He threatened to not pay:Social Security Retirees,Military Retirees,Social Security disability and Federal Retirees. Now.. Let this sink in really good -He did not threaten to stop payments to illegal aliensHe did not threatened to take frivolous benefits such as Internet access away from violent inmatesHe did not offer to fire some of the thousands of unnecessary federal employees that he hiredHe did not offer to cut down on his or his wife's frivolous gallivanting around<span style="COLOR: black; 

    • Hawkerone

      James you have it 90% right. It is not a direct sales tax on the sale of a house but is a added capital gains tax and the sale of anyone making over 250,000 and the profit on the house (deduction of price paid vs price sold for) is 250,000. It is a sales tax but just sliped in by whoever ,obama himself or his hinchmen, into the tax code to be paid to the IRS vs a sales tax paid to local or state.

  • Clsnkkl

    Sorry. I think Obama is a grave danger to the US, but I cannot go with this argument. I think the  "when called into the Service of the United States"  statement clearly refers to the state militias. I think you are grasping at straws with this argument.

  • Jumper82

    You are misinterpreting the Constitution.
    The President is the commander and chief of the Army and Navy they are the
    standing forces the Military the Militia is made up of volunteers. They become
    part of the standing forces when they are activated in times of war if they are
    not activated to the standing forces then the Governors of all 13 Colonies are
    the Commander in Chief of their state Look it up, you have to use the time what
    was going on when they were writing the Constitution…At the time when the
    writers were debating who would be in charge they were thinking about George Washington,
    who at the time was the Commanding General of All armed forces. In the Article it
    states “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” When called into service is talking about
    the Militia being called into service…Congress has the Power to declare war but
    the Founding Fathers did not intend to have congress running the Military

    • Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

      Correct, Jump!  Congress is not the Commander-in-Chief's commander-in-chief.

  • David James Hanson

    Ahem [raising hand politely].  Mr. Giacomo, I always read what you write, and generally I agree with you.  Especially when you express desire that people in government "read the Constitution and follow what it says."  Here, however, I must respectfully dissent from your Constitutional exegesis.  We cannot read this portion of Article II without referring to both the Constitutional text and the historical context surrounding it.

    Constitutional Text
    Let us first note that Article II begins by a broad and general grant of "The executive Power of the United States" to a "President".  The President, in the U.S., is both head of state and head of the federal government.  He 'executes' the will of the citizens of the United States as expressed in the "legislative Power" exercised by Congress. The paragraphs following the vesting of "executive Power" enumerate specific instances of the President's "executive" power.   Those instances include holding the post of Commander in Chief of:
        1)  the Army of the United States;
        2)  the Navy of the United States; and
        3)  "the Militia of the several [individual] States when called into the actual Service of the United States."
     
    Did you notice that I omitted that ill-placed comma, between "States, when..."
    Such commas aren't used in 20th-21st century speech and writing, but they were common in the 18th century, reflecting the florid, orotund manner in which people then spoke.  Similar instances of misleading commas we find in our beloved Amendment II, where "A well-regulated Militia *,* being essential to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear Arms *,* shall not be infringed."    

    My point:  don't split the adjectival phrase "when called into the actual Service of the United States" from its proper object:  the Militia.

    Historical Context
    What is the "militia"?  In Anglo-Saxon, Norman, common-law England, basically all able-bodied males bore citizen duties to defend the realm from threats internal (criminal and rebellious) and external (invasion by foreign powers).  The U.S. copied this system. It essentially survived until the 1870s and the Great Rebellion/War Between The States and the following Reconstruction, after which it fell into disuse. [The Confederate States used their Militias as foundation for the Confederate States Armies, and then the defeated States were ruled by the U.S. Army and Negro militias; so no one really wanted the system to continue.]   The Militia of a State may be "organized" --since the Root Reforms of 1903, as today's National Guard, or in some States as a separate body called a State Guard. Or it may be "unorganized"--i.e., every other able-bodied man in society. 

    Our Founding Fathers recognized the individual citizens acting as a militia as a--nay THE--key source of police power and armed force for America.  Therefore the Constitutional Convention reserved control of militias to the States, as States.  Their Constitution recognized that sometimes threats to the Nation required contribution of armed power from the States.  Therefore they provided in Article I that Congress could "provide for calling the militia" when needed to face internal and external threats.  That "calling" always has been done by the President--never the Congress--from the First Congress's Militia Act down to the present day Title 10 U.S. Code. 

    The United States as the National/Federal government (it's both/and) has never had a militia of its own. It has always had the Army and the Navy (along with their derivatives the Air Force, Marines, and various armed police categories).

    The President most certainly is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy.  He becomes Commander at the moment he takes office, and holds that executive Power until either his term or his life ends, whichever comes first.  He *may become* the Commander in Chief of the Militia *if and when he calls said Militia* "into the actual [not-pretended, and U.S.-paid-for] Service of the United States.   But the U.S. depends for its primary defense upon its own Army and Navy (and their subsequent derivatives the Air Force and the Marine Corps). 

    These views are not mine.  They reflect experience-generated and forcefully-expressed preferences for Regular Army forces over militias, held by no less than that Delegate from Virginia, Chairman of the Constitutional Convention and de facto head of the Revolutionary Colonial government (oh, and incidentally also commanding General of the Continental Army): George Washington.   Article II's legal establishment of a Regular U.S. Army (and Navy) give official republican imprimatur to the U.S. Army, most especially because Washington wanted his country to be defended by a 'real' Army.  He valued the trained volunteer enlistees but disdained the miserable military performance of the militias of the Revolution.

    Gaining Convention approval of a standing U.S. Army makes a significant political victory for Washington.  Most men of the American Revolution, like their English Civil War forebears, feared and hated standing Armies as threats to liberty when in the hands of kingly "tyrants".  We almost didn't get one; Convention delegates strenously urged a domestic militia, alone.  But Washington knew from extensive field experience (no one in the Western Hemisphere had more!) that only extended training made good soldiers.  So he insisted upon a Regular Army to serve the nation, round which core militias could gather and expand America's fighting power.  Only because 1) the Presidency would not be an office permanently vested in one man, and 2) that "President" (note, not King, which was suggested and rejected) wielding "executive Power" over the new Army would certainly be the trusted George Washington, did the Convention delegates approve re-establishing the Army.  And in the early decades of the U.S. it wasn't much of an Army.  But such Army as we had always stood under the command of the President.

    Indeed, when the current organized militia of the "several States" is called into "actual Service of the" U.S., the President also serves as their Commander in chief.  Washington himself did this in the 1790s, to suppress insurrection in Pennsylvania.  No later than the 1980s the Supreme Court reconfirmed the rule that "he who pays the piper calls the tune".  Uncle Sam funds, arms and trains the National Guard; ergo, when the President calls the Guard then it must go to Federal Title 10 service.  (Context: Leftish governors Perpich [D-Minn.] and Dukakis [D-Mass.] tried to keep their State's National Guard soldiers from deploying to Central America in support of President Reagan's campaign of supporting free people against Communists in Central America.  The governors lost their cases. Notice that none of the liberal governors of the 'aughts' opposeing President Bush ever tried to stop mobilizations in their States.

    Sorry for the run-on post.  But I must respectfully disagree with your major premise. The President IS the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy without respect to any "calling"  by the Congress.

    David James Hanson
    (Attorney at law & Army Reserve Judge Advocate currently serving on active duty)

  • Jonsie1533

    maybe someone should inform Obama.... does that mean don't ask don't tell is back in force and I won't have to watch two men in uniform embracing and kissing in public and disgracing the uniform I was proud to serve in???

  • dondehoff

     I would like to believe and accept  your premise. However, I believe you are completly wrong due to the tense international situation.  Also, our milita (now known as the military) actually has  been called  "into service"  since about day-one of our existence as a nation,  and it has  remained  in service ever since. Logic, deductive reason and common sense dictates, if the milita "is in service" which they are and aways have been, they must have a Commander-in-Chief; they  could neither  fuction without clearly established leadership nor would we want  that to happen----they would be running amuck. The world situtation, for years, has  dictated our  immediate   7/24/365  military presence. In the "good old days" we could observe the drafting of troops and build up of enemy forces,  now we have, at best,  a  20-30 minute "window"  for the mainland issues  and  a "zero" time factor at many of our overseas locations.  All Presidents lose a lot of sleep and have many interuptions of leisure time, due to daily 7/24  military demands. I know of what I speak.  I  am a retired USAF Officer;  been there, done that.

  • J.D.Scott

    High time the populace realized that Obama IS the enemy within...

  • Gregg Weber

    Does that Navy have the authority to do things inside the US? No. Just as the Army doesn't. Can you see a Patrol Boat River going up the Yakima River? Won't happen, at least with a nomal President. Not so sure about this one.

  • Hoodini

    Do we still have a Congress? Woooh!  News to me!

  • WileyGreyhound

    Sorry, Giacomo, but you're reading the Constitution wrong!  That phrase "...when called into the actual service of the United States"  as written refers to the militias of the various states which are not always in "the actual service of the United States." It does not refer to the U.S. Military which are always in "the actual service of the United States." Since we didn't have the National Guard when the Constitution was written I'm assuming it can be construed as the states "Militia" and the president is not commanding the National Guard until it is "called up" for actual national service. He is unfortunately (in Obama's case) the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military forces under the Constitution.

  • Teddy Turner

    Actualy , your Original Constitution was overturned in 1871 ...
    Corporations were designed to serve the public interests  prior to this date and were to disband once the public deeds  were accomplished .
    After this date , wealthy families could create monopolies through the use of privetly owned corportions , have a strawman represent them and not have to be held accountable for everything they enterprised to do .
    Prior to that date , you had a free enterprise system in a rural setting
    After that date , corporations consolidated monopolies and created employment for a fast growing society  with many more city dwellers left dependant apon mass production
    As you know , you were owned by "robber barons " since 1913 via a truly and easyly corruptible two party system created in the same year of 1871
    .

  • jimpeel

    POPPYCOCK!!!

    Still one more moronic, tortured reading of the Constitution.

  • Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

    The Army and the Navy are ALWAYS in the service of the United States.  The state militias are not.  State militias are called into the service of the United States.

    Therefore, the president is not required to wait for Congress to invoke his title of "Commander-in-Chief."  He is ALWAYS Commander-in-Chief of the military cuz the military is ALWAYS in the service of the United States.

    So, Congress declares war, but the Commander-in-Chief makes war, commanding his troops into battle when he believe they need to be in battle.  Congress holds the purse strings and may pull them closed at any time.

  • UH60Mike

    Well I am conservative and not a supporter of the current CIC.  However I believe that you are over stepping the wording of the article you quote. 

    “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.”

    This has also been and will continue to be interpreted as he is the commander in chief "Period"  He is then given control of the states militia when congress calls the militia into service of the bigger nation. 

    As much as I don't like this guy.  Lets not read more into our constitution to over step our founding fathers intent.

  • Walt

    Do you really think that minor inconvenience will stop Obama.  He will just declare Martial Law and take control by Executive Order.   Our Congress has let him go too far and no longer knows how to stop him.   He may very well be the last president.  I believe that is his goal.  Declare Martial Law, suspend free elections, suspend congress and literally take control of the rest of the country.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jon-Olinger/722207745 Jon Olinger

    The author is absolutely,
    totally wrong. The President of the United States is Absolutely the Commander
    In Chief of the Armed Forces the moment he assumes office. Article II Section 2
    as quoted above:

    "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.”

    The "when
    called into the actual Service of the United States", referrers to the
    Militia of the several States. The Militia now the National Guard (since the
    Militia Act of 1903) is under the control of the Governor of each State or
    Territory until "called into service" by the powers of Congress. Only
    then is the Militia under the command of the POTUS.

    The regular
    armed forces of the United States are ALWAYS under command of the President in
    his capacity of Commander In Chief.

  • Exploite2

    When are the people going to wake up before they wake up to a government that is going to control every aspect of our lives if WE the PEOPLE do NOT stand up tothis gangster in the Whitehouse before we become a muslim state under the rule of Obanayshon as sheik or more correctly DICTATOR.
    WAKE UP AMERICA AND SMELL THE STINK COMING OUT OF WASHINGTON! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

  • Gilrolling

       As much as i would like to think that is true because Obama is president, i think it is a mis-reading of article II section 2
        The active military is always considered "called into service today" 247 but not so the reserves which only congress can call into service. 
       The founders didn't like the idea of a standing army/navy period but came to understand one was necessarily but only for security outside our domestic boundaries or during domestic national emergencies. "nice try though"

    GAP

  • http://www.facebook.com/blane.barnes Blane Barnes

    Following this man would only lead to a retreat and him bowing with apologies, no I'm a Retired US Army/Disabled American Veteran and I would NOT follow this type of person anywhere!!!

  • LKM

    It seems clear to me that section 2, artical 2 means that the President is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (all of the time). He also becomes Commander in Chief of the various State Militias WHEN  CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.

  • Biloak71

     A good example of the sentiment of the people are te postings here. It's good to see  citizens airing it out.One word - ONLY ONE WORD - inflames people; incites them. OBAMA!! And I'm included. This man oozes negativity. When is the last time he offered encouragement or uplifting ideas or actions? He scolds, condescends, browbeats non-stop. It's all crisis to him; "it has to be done now", etc. and it has to be done HIS way; to HIS liking. I'm sick and tired of him and his methods. AND his poisonous ideology. WE CAN STOP THIS CRAZINESS BY DEFEATING HIM in NOV. The attitude and outlook in America will improve overnight, just by getting rid of O and his crowd. Don't complain; DO IT!

  • Remington 870

    The GOP Congress has allowed the Usurper in Chief to get away with urinating on the Constitution. I am convinced more that most members of the GOP Congress are in photos with Coach Sandusky taking showers with small boys. This explains why GOP Congress is cowardly and does nothing.

  • GWY

    I believe over time for political reasons, Congress has passed legislation relinquishing it's authority to the President.  The Congress could reverse the whole thing but fear of losing their own positions are failing to do so.

  • BOOMER8

    Interesting that the Congress has not "called" the Militia, which is the armed citizenry as is stated" To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
    Seems like we citizens have a duty that's been overlooked and ignored by Congress.

  • DanD

    "when called into the actual Service of the United States"  That phrase does not mean what you think it means.  It is referring specifically to the immediately preceeding phrase  "and of the Militia of the several States".  That is, he is commander in chief of the National Guard when it called into federal service.  It does not refer to the president's status as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (and by extension other federal armed forces).

  • Alan Gilfoy

    grammatically speaking, "when called into the actual Service of the United States" might refer to just state militias, not the regular military.

  • Phrog flyer

    Too bad most Americans do NOT understand the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is operating under international law and therefore is not bound to operate in accordance with the Constitution AND NOT JUST in the case of control of the military, hence the 'un-constitutional' actions are not challenged by the elements of justice nor the people.

  • EdinNola

    Most of us know HOW its supposed to work.  At least most of us old timers know how the system is supposed to work.  What we don't know and want to know is WHY the Administration is getting away with its illegal activities?  We also want to know WHY the fabled checks and balances have allowed an unqualified poser to sit in the oval office.  Why is it that our elected Congress people are perpetuating this illegitimate government.

  • Rick Wilson

    Apparently, the author of this article is not well versed in sentence structure. The founders were speaking of the militia of the several states, when they are called into actual duty, NOT the President.....DUH!

  • Brian Gunderson

     CONGR0ESS _ CONGRESS _ CONGRESS _ AND _ ONLY _ CONGRESS
    To declare War…

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
     FOR TWO YEARS NOT ( Vietnam 1958-1975 (17 years), Iraq 10 years , afghanistan ???)
    and not by the president proclaiming war that makes him a  DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

      The president, as Commander-in-Chief, doesn't declare war, nor "proclaim" it.  He makes it.  Congress cannot make war, only declare it, when the president asks for such declaration.  But he doesn't need a congressional declaration.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Walters/1538392633 Jeff Walters

    I think your reading of Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, is incorrect. It would appear to mean that the President is commander in chief of the militias (which would now be known as the National Guard) when said militias are called up for national service. I am as appalled as anyone by Obama's power grabs and disregard for the Constitution, but in this case I believe you are constructing a straw man, where no issue exists.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RU7Z4WXPXPYVWO4QALFN3NXSXQ Eartha

    The problem is that, Congress handed its power, of Legistaive Office, right on a Silver Platter, over to Georgie boy, during his tenure.Nobody remembers that, but I was aghast when it happened

    So, from that time on, the Executive has had control of the 3 Branches: The Judicial, the Legislative and. of course, itself, the Executive Office.

    That's when the trouble started.  Of course, Congress has let all the criminal slip by it, even to the point of abolishing itself,  and allowing for a Super-Congress (  6 entities only) to rule.

    We are THEIR Bosses!

    And last, the schools lie when they tell children there are 3 Branches of Gov.  In fact, there are 4 BRANCHES,  the 1st and Most imortant is: "WE, THE PEOPLE."

    So, the  group, "The Commander in Chief" doesn't rule, is:  We, THE People!

  • Ccoleman5

    I had this problem when I was a prison Case Manager, the inmates would read  a law, take out part of it and present that as fact.  As a fmr serviceman, the phrase "when called to office" means the moment you take the oath and are in the service of the government--them moment obama took the oath of office (and let's not get into that again), he became the holder of the office of president and by constitution, the CIC.  If you don't like the way the government runs, move to another country, or run for office yourself.

  • omega99

    One of the best ways to resolve issues such as this is to refer to the Federalist Papers. A search of them using "commander" as the key word, leads to #69 by Hamilton. In paragraph 6 he writes: "The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union." So Hamilton, clearly has the phrase "when called ..." describing the temporal nature of the service of the militia but not a temporal nature for the role of CIC.

    • Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

      The Federalist is the foremost authority on the Consitution by those who wrote it.