When is the President commander-in-Chief?
 

According to the US constitution, Article II, section 2 it is "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;", which means he's not Commander-in-Chief unless there is a declared war. That's what "called into service" means.

What it means is what the Supreme Court rules it means.

What have they (if ever) ruled on that language historically?

Before 1900, most of the rulings I know about centered on making Lincoln's actions in 1861 legal after the fact. This did establish precedent which Bush II uses today. However, modern cases that have been brought to court over the War Powers Act have been rejected by the court as an argument between the Executive and the Legislative branches in which the court will not involve itself. IOW, judicial cowardice at its finest.

The effect has been to allow the Executive Branch to assert its control of the military fulltime, including a standing Army which the founders attempted to prohibit, and to put the military and to go to war anytime the Executive branch desires to do so.

The legislative branch has been suckered twice now by Presidents into authorizing the use of the American military in major engagements without declaring war: Vietnam and Iraq. In each case, the justification turned out to be largely fabricated. It's surprising they repeated the mistake in Iraq, but 9/11 was probably a factor, along with a rubber stamp Republican Congress. The Republicans have paid for that, and will probably continue paying for awhile. You can't be too lock-step with the Executive.

"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 is amazing how folks seem to be able to read almost anything they want into the Constitution. Actually, he is Commander in Chief for the Army and Navy of the United States all of the time...and the Commander in Chief of the militia (National Guard) when they are called into the actual service of the United States, just as it says.

Indeed, it is interesting. Remove the dependent clause which leaves the rest of the sentence (the independent clause) and this is what is left:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States when called into the actual service of the United States;". See how easy that is.

My point is that my discussion of an alternative view of that section of Article II is more in line with the founders intentions than what we have now, wouldn't you say?

I going to hate myself for doing this, but
Paste don't you think that if the founders intented it to read a different way they would have written it a different way?
Just because you would like to read it differently does not mean they intended it to be read and written a different way
Steve

Clearly there is a whole section of the Constitution that lays out the responsibilities of Congress regarding the military. One would expect that if there was some differentiation to make...it would be there.
In subsequent law such as Public Law 93-148, the War Powers Resolution (1973), the House and Senate have confirmed Presidential authority in such matters.

When did the authors of the Constitution discuss a permanent standing Army as correct?

You are now moving punctuation around to try to alter the meaning of the Constitution? You must be bored.

Doesn't matter whast any of our opinions is. It matters what those nine old men and women's opinons are. Feel free not to like it, but that's how our system works. There's plenty of rulings I am sure I would not like if I understood all the details. My not liking it wouldn't change a damned thing. Hence the term, "the law of the land".

Steve,

Anyone who thinks that the Civil War is still going on is not going to be good with thinking of any sort.

Slopat is in this corner and with every post just digs the hole deeper.

Hey actually this is can be fun!
I just did what Paste did and took the original writtings and re-arranged it to the way the founders wanted to write it

The President of the militia of several states, when called into the actual service of the United States shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

Paste could be onto something here
Steve

Steve,

Please just try to stay in touch with reality. He has not at times and it shows...

So, I guess I'll add no knowledge of English grammar to that long list of "stuff" of which you have no knowledge.

That is, if I kept such a list. http://images14.fotki.com/v371/photo...19/lmao-vi.gif That really would indicate boredom.

Clearly this portion of the Constitution that cover the role of Congress differentiates between the militia and the Army and Navy. There is nothing to indicate their intent was temporary.

"Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: 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; "

Other than during a declared war, the Army was not to be in service for longer than two years. Read the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers. For further clarification, Constitutionally, the Air Force is an army.

According to my interpretation of the Federalist papers, you are wrong both regarding the Commander-in-Chief and a standing Army. If you would like to cite something that contradicts common interpretation, I would be interested in seeing it.