In basic they made it clear how important it was to have civilian leadership over the military. This is a core concept in the US.
We’ve had plenty of military officers as president, but never while president.
I’d love to see a legal mechanism for preventing Trump from running, but charging him as an officer is not it.
The court ruling literally refers to him as an officer of the US Executive branch
Edit: I have since disavowed this instance
“Chief Executive Officer” means Officer of the Executive branch of government. That’s not a military position.
But that said, the military is a part of the Executive Branch, and the president is also the “Commander in Chief” of the military, however, that is not a military position either.
On paper*, the military is answerable to 1) the Constitution and 2) the President. The President is not answerable to the military. The President commands the military without being in the military.
*I say on paper because, although military personal are duty-bound to disobey unconstitutional orders—even if they come from the President—in practice they don’t have a great track record of doing it.
The military isn’t relevant to the point I was making in that comment. I was pointing out the cognitive dissonance of the court ruling stating as a Finding of Fact that POTUS is “Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch” of the US, yet deciding that POTUS is also not an officer of the US. It’s in the court’s own verbiage that POTUS is categorically an officer and said office is that of the US Executive Branch; ergo, POTUS would be an officer of the US.
Edit: I have since disavowed this instance
But officer doesn’t necessarily mean military. In fact there are many civilian officers, as an officer is someone who holds an office. In fact one need not hold an office to act as an officer of an organisation, it simply needs them to be acting in an official capacity.
Sure, but the post specifically questions if commander in chief is an officer in the military, and no, there are not.
Officer of the military ≠ officer in the military. Looping back to the point other commenters have made about civilian leadership over the military, the relevant section of the 14th Amendment establishes the existence of civilian offices under the US. The court finding also refers to POTUS as “Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch”. In each hypothetical scenario of the Commander in Chief being categorized as a civilian office or instead being categorized as a military office, it is covered by the critical word “or” in “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States…”. Ultimately, the role of Commander in Chief is an “office, civilian or military, under the United States”, and to “have engaged in insurrection” while in this office of the US would disqualify a person from holding this office again (except the court decided otherwise 🙄).
Edit: I have since disavowed this instance
And once again I’m defeated by misreading a single word.
Jokes aside, the fact that the President as commander-in-chief is a civilian and not an officer of the military is actually quite fundamental to civilian control of the military in the USA.
I think I have to be pedantic to address this.
Officer of the military ≠ officer in the military.
Categorically, a civilian is not in the military. However, the Commander in Chief position grants the civilian hierarchy and command over the military. If POTUS/Commander in Chief is considered to be a held office of the US (the point of contention in the Colorado case), due to its hierarchical position and scope of action, it is then an office of the military without being in the military.
Is there some detail that I’m missing with the tenet of civilian control over the military that you mentioned?
Edit: I have since disavowed this instance
