The President should be commander-in-chief of the military

Thank you for accepting my challenge "Boredinclass". First off, debate class is NOT boring, and thus your opinions are skewed (that was a joke, don't take it as a real argument). Contention 1: Qualifications When the concept of the President becoming commander-on-chief was invented, the world did not believe in electing a leader that was incompetent in their position. This happens all the time now. The first commander-in-chief was George Washington during the Revolutionary War. He was an honest man of the people, repsected their will, and was competent in his position. When he became the first President of the United States, he had all the qualifications neccessary to be an efficient leader. He had military expierience, a background in business, a background in politics, and was competent in all of these aspects. Washington was the best possible primary leader for the United States at the time, and thus was qualified to run that position well. Unfortunatly, all Presidents since then have not had all of these qualifications, perhaps excluding Andrew Jackson. The Commander-in-chief of the military needs to have military expierience to efficiently use their position, and almost all Presidents have not had this military expierience. Obama, not to make this a big issue, did not have military nor business background, only minor expierinece in politics. He, being the current President, is not fully qualified to be commander-in-chief of our military, and he is not using his position to the extent that he could be. If he wanted, he could single-handedly end military operations in the Middle East, he could, but he isn't. Contention 2: Checks and Balances When the Constitution was written, it was designed to give equal power to all parties involved. No one group would be able to shut down the other, but not one group could run without the other. Our government is completley dependent on the different branches, and thus the threat of corruption in one of the brances could shut down the government as a government of the people, for the people, by the people. This is why the Framers of the Constituition wrote Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, giving Command of the Armed Forces to the President. Only Congress could declare war, but the President could command the military. This disabled the Presidents's ability to control government by using the military, for only Congress could declare war. Sounds good right? But what if the President does command the military, and Congress declares war. It's all fine and dandy as long as the President has the qualifications necessary to run this position. But what if he or she doesn't? Bad command could lead to more lives being lost, more soldiers killed, more families in grief. But the checks and balances required by the Constitution cannot be changed, for collapse of checks and balances could lead to the collapse of a government of the people. So how can this be changed without removing these checks and balances. The answer is this: if the President does not have the qualifications to use the position of Commander-in-Chief, give the position of Commander-in-Chief to the Sectretary of Defense. This would keep command of the military inside of the executive branch, a leader with the military qualifications to effectivly use their position. Checks and balances would be maintained, and fewer lives are lost. Perfect. By instating the Secretary of Defense as the Commander-in-Chief of the military, checks and balances will be maintained, and the position is used effectively. While the President may have the qualifications neccessary to use the postion effectively, as with Washington and Jackson, more Presidents in our history do not have the qualifications, and this is likely to continue as a pattern of our primary leaders. This would be the best decision for America's military, civilians, government, and people.