US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
reuters.com
US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
#2There should probably be some kind of elected position, independent from the three branches, who's sole task is to veto presidential orders to the armed forces. The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.
Re: US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
#3 Earlier this week, however, Hegseth reversed an Army decision to investigate Army pilots who
were flying attack helicopters near singer Kid Rock's house, in an apparent show of support
for the vocal Trump backer.
Re: US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
#4There should probably be some kind of elected position, independent from the three branches, who's sole task is to veto presidential orders to the armed forces. The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.
> The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.
I disagree. The decision to go to war should always be slow and deliberate. I can't think of a single case where the President deciding to send troops on a whim without consulting Congress or getting their approval first ever worked out well.
Re: US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
#5There should probably be some kind of elected position, independent from the three branches, who's sole task is to veto presidential orders to the armed forces. The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.
A lot of government would be improved by making elected positions be very specific roles.
Why are we deciding military strategy from a guy that was elected to fix labor rights? Should the same guy running the school system also be in charge of selecting Supreme Court justices?
Also, the founding fathers had it right: An independent electoral college should decide elected positions, not the general public. Hiring decisions should be left up to people that are expert at hiring, not random people.
The only role the general public should have in government is deciding their representative - it's literally in the name!
And executive branch isn't supposed to be a representative. It's only role is to execute laws created by the representatives.
Re: US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
#6There should probably be some kind of elected position, independent from the three branches, who's sole task is to veto presidential orders to the armed forces. The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.
> The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful. I disagree. The decision to go to war should always be slow and deliberate. I can't think of a single case where the President deciding to send troops on a whim without consulting Congress or getting their approval first ever worked out well.
I suppose the devil is in the details of "getting their approval" but it's worth noting Lincoln prosecuted the Civil War without seeking a declaration of war with congress.
Re: US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful. I disagree. The decision to go to war should always be slow and deliberate. I can't think of a single case where the President deciding to send troops on a whim without consulting Congress or getting their approval first ever worked out well.
I suppose the devil is in the details of "getting their approval" but it's worth noting Lincoln prosecuted the Civil War without seeking a declaration of war with congress.
That's because the United States official position in the civil war was that the south was a part of the US that was in rebellion, and not a sovereign state that we were at war with.
Re: US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose the devil is in the details of "getting their approval" but it's worth noting Lincoln prosecuted the Civil War without seeking a declaration of war with congress.
That's because the United States official position in the civil war was that the south was a part of the US that was in rebellion, and not a sovereign state that we were at war with.
I don't see how that negates the action of sending of troops for combat. You're just arguing an excuse as to why congress wasn't sought to to declare war in this "case where the President decid[ed] to send troops." There is always some excuse for that nowadays, quite conveniently, so you're in good company.
Re: US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful. I disagree. The decision to go to war should always be slow and deliberate. I can't think of a single case where the President deciding to send troops on a whim without consulting Congress or getting their approval first ever worked out well.
I suppose the devil is in the details of "getting their approval" but it's worth noting Lincoln prosecuted the Civil War without seeking a declaration of war with congress.
That might be the one exception.
Re: US Army chief of staff fired by Hegseth
#10There should probably be some kind of elected position, independent from the three branches, who's sole task is to veto presidential orders to the armed forces. The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.
A lot of government would be improved by making elected positions be very specific roles. Why are we deciding military strategy from a guy that was elected to fix labor rights? Should the same guy running the school system also be in charge of selecting Supreme Court justices? Also, the founding fathers had it right: An independent electoral college should decide elected positions, not the general public. Hiring deci…
Really pushing the definition of elected there.