tanksoldier

quote
You have no idea how the military works, you have no concept of how military authority works or from whence it originates. The federal code you reference states that civilians should "salute" by placing a hand over the heart. The Commander in Chief is not a civilian, tho he is not a member of any particular branch of the military, because if he WAS a civilian he could not give orders to military personnel or exercise command, both of which the President clearly does.
unquote



Cause for relief
Why presidents no longer fire generals
BY LT. COL. ROBERT L. BATEMAN

You have to look back a fairly long distance to find generals and admirals being relieved of combat commands, either in combat or just prior to deployment. Only eight American generals or admirals have been publicly relieved of command from a combatant unit, or in a combat zone, since 1945. As noted, significantly, only one of them was relieved for failure. General of the Army Douglas MacArthur was yanked from command by President Truman during the Korean War not because he had failed, but for outright insubordination. He disagreed with the president, was privately informed to toe the line and, instead, continued his de facto attempts to create his own foreign policy. (This included the threat to bring Taiwanese Nationalist Chinese into the conflict in Korea, as well as his better-known comments on the use of nuclear weapons.) More recently, Adm. William Fallon “voluntarily stepped down” after a media story appeared that highlighted his heretofore apparent private disagreements with members of the executive office of the vice president and the president. In both cases, the salient feature was not a failure to win at the operational or strategic level — the echelon occupied by both Fallon and MacArthur — but one of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^subordination of the military to the duly constituted civilian authority.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


In the end, there is no simple solution. It is probably dangerous, for the republic and the armed forces that defend her, for this situation to exist. But it is also the logical result of 232 years of evolution ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^between the military and the civilian authorities that control them. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The question that remains is this: When nobody is willing to sit in judgment of the combat performance of the generals, including the generals, then who is really in control of our armed forces?

Do we need the equivalent of a base realignment and closure board for generals? Recall that it was only the threat of public hearings before Congress that apparently scuttled Sanchez’s nomination for a fourth star and command of Southern Command. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Generals may be selected by the president, but as with all officers, their promotion is contingent upon approval from the Senate. In the Sanchez case, Congress fulfilled the role intended for it in this set-up. But very often it would be a political hot potato for a congressman to appear unsympathetic to a medal-wearing general.

LT. COL. ROBERT L. BATEMAN is an infantryman and historian who has taught military history at the U.S. Military Academy.


While this piece was about the President relieving General Officers of their combat positions, it is a good source for describing the relationship that exists between the President, the Senate and the military. I suspect his wording to be precise given his rank and as a teacher at the U.S. Military Academy. Surely his statements have received the utmost scrutiny and any that are in error or misleading would have been promptly corrected. Therefore I submit the following:

1. subordination of the military to the duly constituted civilian authority.
2. Generals may be selected by the president, but as with all officers, their promotion is contingent upon approval from the Senate
3. threat of public hearings before Congress that apparently scuttled Sanchez’s nomination for a fourth star and command of Southern Command

So we have here
1. a military answering to civilian authority. Lt. Col. Bateman didn't say CinC, POTUS, SEC of Defense, etc.
2. Officers may be selected by the Pres but if the Senate says No...the answer is No. Can there be any doubt over who is wearing the pants?
3. an example of a presidential selection that did not come to pass. The POTUS may hand you the check...but Congress signed it. In the case of Sanchez, Congress wouldn't even sign it.

I have cited my sources, and my reasons. You have resorted to misdirection, belief in fallacy, and personal attack. The only citations you have listed is an Army Regulation that deals with how members of the army are to perform however, it is not up to date (24 Sept 2004) as per the following:

Appendix C
Courtesies Rendered by Individuals During Various Ceremonies and Public Events (On and Off Post)
C–1. General
In general, to render honors: If indoors, stand at attention, unless reporting to a superior. If outdoors, execute the hand
salute when in uniform, or place the right hand over the heart when in civilian clothes.
C–2. During ceremonies
When ceremonies (excluding military funerals) are being conducted, moving vehicles will be brought to a halt. Military
passengers and drivers will dismount and render the appropriate courtesy. When riding in buses and trucks, only the
senior occupant will dismount and render appropriate courtesy.
AR 600–25 • 24 September 2004 19


The following citations are listed as sources: NOTICE PLEASE ***********US CODE*************
Appendix A
4 USC 4
Title 4—Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
10 USC 1074a
Medical and dental care: members on duty other than active duty for a period of more than 30 days (http://
www.gpo.gov/uscode)
10 USC 1491
Funeral honors functions at funeral for veterans (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
10 USC 1588
Authority to accept certain voluntary services (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
10 USC 2031
Junior Reserve Officers’ Taining Corps (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
10 USC 2102
Senior Reserve Officers’ Taining Corps (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
10 USC 12503
Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
10 USC 12732
Entitlement to retired pay: computation of years of service (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
32 USC 115
Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
37 USC
Pay and allowances of the uniformed services (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
37 USC 435
Funeral honors duty: allowance (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
37 USC chapter 7
Allowances (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
38 USC 101(2)
Definitions: veteran (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
38 USC 101(24)
Definitions: active military, naval, or air service (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)
38 USC 2301
Flags (http://www.gpo.gov/uscode)

The Supreme Court defines Presidential powers...as Commander in Chief...do what Congress says.


THE CONGRESS AS SURGE PROTECTOR
By Neil Kinkopf
Reports indicate that President Bush plans to respond to the deteriorating situation in Iraq by substantially increasing the number of American troops deployed there. According to these reports, the President will call for the nation to make sacrifices in support of this “surge” in troop levels. The Constitution makes it quite clear that Congress may stop the President from imposing such sacrifices on the nation. This decision is one that rests with our democratic process and is vested originally in Congress.

Congress Can Forbid the President from Escalating the Iraq War without Renewed Authorization

Even if the President does not submit his plan for congressional approval, Congress is constitutionally empowered to require him to do so.
The Constitution grants Congress extensive war powers – so extensive, in fact, that Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the Acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides ….” (Talbot v. Seeman (1801).) These powers include the power to declare war; grant letters of marque and reprisal; raise and support an army and navy; make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; provide for the calling forth of the militia; and to lay taxes and appropriate funds to provide for the common defense, with the proviso that no appropriation for such a purpose can be for more than two years. The President is made the commander in chief and is authorized to
appoint, with Senate confirmation, such military officers as Congress may by statute create.
Under the U.S. Constitution, it is Congress that has the power to initiate and regulate war, while the President is authorized to command the resulting war effort.As Commander in Chief, the President’s role is to prosecute the war that Congress has authorized. The President may not go beyond this authorization.
This understanding of the President’s power as Commander in Chief is plain enough from the text of the Constitution itself. It has also been the consistent interpretation of the Courts. Chief Justice John Marshall set forth this interpretation in a series of cases arising from the naval war with France. Most notably, in Little v. Barreme, Chief Justice Marshall held that the President’s war powers are defined by statute and may not exceed statutory limits.
In the naval war with France, Congress had authorized the U.S. navy to intercept vessels bound to, but not from, French ports. In Little a U.S. navy ship, acting pursuant to a presidential order to intercept ships bound to or from French ports, intercepted a commercial vessel suspected of coming from a French port. The Supreme Court ruled the action illegal because it went beyond the military force authorized by statute.
The Supreme Court has continued to adhere to this view of the war power. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (the famous Steel Seizure case), the Supreme Court struck down President Truman’s order that the nation’s steel mills continue operating in order to keep the troops in the Korean War armed. Justice Jackson’s famous concurring opinion (which the Supreme Court has since held to set forth the proper view of presidential power) emphasized that the Constitution does not set forth exclusive power, but overlapping or shared power. Where Congress and the President share power, as in the area of war power, the President is bound to comply with the statutes that Congress enacts.
Most recently, the Supreme Court has applied Justice Jackson’s framework to resolve challenges to President Bush’s assertions of commander-in-chief power. In both Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court rejected the President’s assertion of unilateral authority to conduct military operations , holding instead that the President must comply with applicable statutory limits as well as applicable international law.
The Supreme Court has been clear and unambiguous. When Congress, acting in the vast areas of overlapping power, tells the President “no,” the President must comply. Thus, Congress may limit the scope of the present Iraq War by either of two mechanisms. First, it may directly define limits on the scope of that war—and forbid the President from exceeding these limits—such as by imposing a ceiling on the number of troops assigned to that conflict. Second, it may achieve the same objective by enacting appropriations riders that limit the use of appropriated funds. Indeed, the reason that the Constitution limits military appropriations to two years is to prevent Congress from abdicating its responsibility to oversee ongoing military engagements.

The President Should Seek Congressional Assent for His New Iraq War Plans

The Constitution’s drafters understood the immense national sacrifice that war entails. Moreover, they understood the advantages that would accrue to the President during times of war. For these reasons, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to initiate war and to define the parameters of military operations. The Constitution’s structure, then, clearly contemplates that important decisions regarding the scale of war are to be made not by the President alone, but through the democratic process. This is why the Constitution mandates Congress’s assent not only to the initiation of a war but to its size and scope.

Neil Kinkopf is an Associate Professor of Law at Georgia State University. He served as
a constitutional advisor to the Clinton Administration from 1993-1997 in the Department
of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

The American Constitution Society takes no position on particular legal or policy initiatives.

Um, I'm not sure of the relevance... but keep Googling, maybe you'll learn something.

tanksoldier

To refresh…
1. I’ve said that the President is ‘civilian.’
2. That US Code gives Active Duty military and retired military veterans the option to salute using a military salute as opposed to the hand over the heart when dressed in civilian clothing.
3. That US Code specifies that civilians show respect to the flag by putting the hand over the heart.
4. That since the President is a civilian, and since US Code specifies how civilians are to render honors to our flag and the Pledge of Allegiance, that failure to follow proper protocol is disingenuous and disrespectful.
5. That since the President should follow the law (US Code), that he shouldn’t salute marines or anyone else because if he can’t salute the flag…the very symbol of this country, to salute anyone else puts them above the flag.
6. I have NOT embarked on the subject of who, when or how, the president may be saluted. That is specified elsewhere and unless I'm in uniform, concerns me not.


I have provided the parts of the US CODE that apply to the above. (see post 1)

I have provided proof that US Code is the final, top most, ultimate law of our land. (post 18 page 2)

I have provided rebuttal to your position that the president has military rank. (post 1 page 3) I quoted an article by Lt. Col. Robert Bateman where he states "subordination of the military to the duly constituted civilian authority",and also "between the military and the civilian authorities that control them".

I have provided rebuttal to your position that "Congress has no say in the commissioning of officers into the US military. None." (see post 2 page 3)
I quoted an article by Neil Kinkopf, an Associate Professor of Law at Georgia State University. He served as a constitutional advisor to the Clinton Administration from 1993-1997 in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. In it he states "The Constitution grants Congress extensive war powers – so extensive, in fact, that Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the Acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides ….” (Talbot v. Seeman (1801). These powers include the power to declare war; grant letters of marque and reprisal; raise and support an army and navy; make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; provide for the calling forth of the militia; and to lay taxes and appropriate funds to provide for the common defense, with the proviso that no appropriation for such a purpose can be for more than two years. The President is made the commander in chief and is authorized to appoint, with Senate confirmation, such military officers as Congress may by statute create. Under the U.S. Constitution, it is Congress that has the power to initiate and regulate war, while the President is authorized to command the resulting war effort. As Commander in Chief, the President’s role is to prosecute the war that Congress has authorized. The President may not go beyond this authorization." Also "The President is made the commander in chief and is authorized to appoint, with Senate confirmation, such military officers as Congress may by statute create." The key words "with Senate confirmation" shows who is really in charge. If Congress says NO!, the answer really is NO.

I have shown how limited the Presidents authority really is in the article by Neil Kinkopf. "Justice John Marshall set forth this interpretation in a series of cases arising from the naval war with France. Most notably, in (Little v. Barreme), Chief Justice Marshall held that the President’s war powers are defined by statute and may not exceed statutory limits. In the naval war with France, Congress had authorized the U.S. navy to intercept vessels bound to, but not from, French ports. In (Little v. Barreme), a U.S. navy ship, acting pursuant to a presidential order to intercept ships bound to or from French ports, intercepted a commercial vessel suspected of coming from a French port. The Supreme Court ruled the action illegal because it went beyond the military force authorized by statute." He continues with modern day citations -"In both Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court rejected the President’s assertion of unilateral authority to conduct military operations , holding instead that the President must comply with applicable statutory limits."

I have shown how recent the very act of a president saluting is, how it came about, and the "reason" it being done today. see "To salute or not to salute, that’s Obama’s question" by David Alexander post 16 page 2 I quote "Longstanding tradition requires members of the military to salute the president. The practice of presidents returning that salute is more recent — Ronald Reagan started it in 1981. Reagan’s decision raised eyebrows at the time. Dwight Eisenhower, a former five-star general, did not return military salutes while president. Nor had other presidents. John Kline, then Reagan’s military aide and now a Minnesota congressman, advised him that it went against military protocol for presidents to return salutes." Not knowing how to properly acknowledge a Marine's salute "Reagan ultimately took up the issue with Gen. Robert Barrow, then commandant of the Marine Corps. Barrow told Reagan that as commander in chief of the armed forces, he was entitled to offer a salute — or any sign of respect he wished — to anyone he wished, Kline wrote, adding he was glad for the change." hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm entitled??? Let's see; You are the Pres., you have authority to promote me, you are the Boss, now what did you want to hear? From Almar 052/08 (this is an all marine bulletin #52 issued Dec 08). This highlights what the Commandant Marine Corp thinks is the role of customs and traditions: "2. CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS PROVIDE A LINK TO THE PAST; THEY BOND MARINES WHO HAVE GONE BEFORE WITH MARINES WHO WILL CARRY THE TORCH THROUGH THE FUTURE. ANY LOSS OF TRADITION OR IMPROPER OBSERVATION OF CUSTOM BLURS OUR IDENTITY AND WEAKENS US AS AN INSTITUTION. THROUGH THE FAITHFUL ADHERENCE BY COMMANDERS AND EACH INDIVIDUAL MARINE, WE PRESERVE OUR IDENTITY AND REPUTATION AS A UNIQUE AND ELITE FIGHTING ORGANIZATION." I ask you, if General Eisenhower, a 5 star general with 40 years of service, knew that it was improper for him to use the military salute, by what stretch of the imagination, does anyone else think they are entitled? Ahhhhhhhhhhh, I know...you win entitlement like you WIN the Medal of Honor. Spend more money on raffle tickets (votes), win the presidency, and you can get your very own.



As for your last post "You have no idea how the military works, you have no concept of how military authority works or from whence it originates. The federal code you reference states that civilians should "salute" by placing a hand over the heart. The Commander in Chief is not a civilian, tho he is not a member of any particular branch of the military, because if he WAS a civilian he could not give orders to military personnel or exercise command, both of which the President clearly does.

You clearly aren't military yourself, but you insist on telling a career Soldier how things work. I _AM_ military, a veteran of 16 years and two wars, yet you insist on telling ME what does and does not show proper respect for the military? Really? I think I'm quite capable of deciding what I find respectful and what I don't ... as well as having a far better understanding of military regulations, protocol and tradition than you do. Not only are you ignorant, but your intelligence is questionable.

The Commander in Chief salutes because he wants to, and that's all that's required. End of story."


1. I do know how the military works. Intimately.
2. As senior enlisted advisor (what the Army calls - command sergeant major) to my last Commanding Officer, you can bet that I've got that authority angle covered also.
3. The Commander in Chief is Not a civilian. From the branch secretaries to the president, all are civilians. The Constitution describes them as "constituted CIVILIAN authority".
4. US Navy, 1967-1995, 28 years, 2 National Defense awards (2 wars). DoD civilian, (still doing the piss test), and working with units headed "down range" on a daily basis. As an aside, got to play gunner on a M1A1 Abrams with the Battalion Master Gunner as TC. Also drove it.
5. "Not only are you ignorant, but your intelligence is questionable. And "... but keep Googling, maybe you'll learn something." Good, real good.
Is that ALL you can find to proves your points?
6. "Commander in Chief salutes because he wants to..." Obviously, but that still doesn't make it right or proper.