Congress should have more power.. to be "commander in chief"

[republicanchick]

Commander in chief is too big a job for one man... something we just now have learned

historically, this has not been a problem but now we see that

one man should not be entrusted with the power to... go to war or not go to war...

I feel Congress should be given the title of Commander in Chief... not the president. And this power should be veto-proof if there is a 2/3 majority

The Founders of this country did not, apparently, foresee what is going on 200 years removed...



+

 

[Angel4Truth]

Do you even know what commander in chief actually means?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Commander in chief is too big a job for one man... something we just now have learned

historically, this has not been a problem but now we see that

one man should not be entrusted with the power to... go to war or not go to war...

I feel Congress should be given the title of Commander in Chief... not the president. And this power should be veto-proof if there is a 2/3 majority

The Founders of this country did not, apparently, foresee what is going on 200 years removed...



+

Do you know your recent history? Only congress has the authority to declare war. But congress gave up some of that power to allow a president to wage war without actually declaring a war. Do you know what president congress gave that power too? George W Bush.

 

[republicanchick]

Do you know your recent history? Only congress has the authority to declare war. But congress gave up some of that power to allow a president to wage war without actually declaring a war. Do you know what president congress gave that power too? George W Bush.

and they need to take it back, hence my OP


_

 

[republicanchick]

there is no emergency that involves war or possible war that can't wait for congress to.. hold an emergency session if necessary... to take a vote on Y or N..

makes no sense for the pres to have that much power... that is tyranny

monarchy


__