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

Alright, i'll do the same that my opponent did, with going on his arguments then going on my own. ">>>>he could single-handedly end military operations in the Middle East, he could, but he isn't. -For political reasons and trying to appease the right. That's why he has not pulled out -Also, to do so would disrupt the checks and balances, because this is a war and this would cause major political backlash from congress" ---Appeasing the right, not doing what the people want. The President is the supreme representative of the people, and should not be involved in petty politics. I do admit that the President has to go through these things, but this only proves that he does not have the qualifications to command the military. Being wrapped up in such politics, it is difficult for the President to run the military. The Sectretary of Defense does not have to deal with the politics of being primary leader, so thus he would be the best choice for this position. This would not disrupt checks in balances, because the position would remain in the hands of the executive branch. "Obviously harvey has not gotten to that part, or you would know that Commander-in-cheif is ruled for by the constitution. >>>>a government of the people, for the people, by the people. -*facepalm* do you really think that this is a true democracy? If it was, then why wasn't al gore the 44th president of the United states? " ---First off, you cannot base arguments on teachers, for I still have a logical opinion and I am not dependent on a single source of information. We, though we may not be a perfect democracy, are still a government for the people, of the people, by the people. Our government was designed by the founding fathers to accuratly represent the people in the best manner possible. Our government is most likely the best government in the world. The way the system works, Al Gore, though he did when the most popular votes, lost in the Electoral College. This is the way our government works. If you dont like it, suggest an amendment to our Constitution, like the way I am suggesting an amendment to put the command of our military in the hands of the Secretary of Defense. ">>>>Article 2, Section 2 - The actual article--e shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. --" --- I do concede to this misquoted source. I used Wikipedia to cite it, and I am sorry that it was incorrect. Please note that though this is the incorrect location, the Constitution still gives the position of Commander-in-Chief to the President. ">>>>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? -It's all hypothetical, give me one historical example where this has happened. " --- FDR during World War 2. He did not single-handley command the military. In fact, he gave control of the U. S. Armed Forces to the Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower. He later became President and had the qualifications to command our military, but the fact remains that FDR did not have the qualifications to command the military, realized this fact, and handed the responsibility to Ike. Not all Presidents were as wise, nor will be as wise, as FDR, and he made the right decision. Who is to say future leaders will be this wise? The powers of Commander-in-Chief need to be given to the Sect. of Defense, the man or woman most qualified to run that position. ">>>>By instating the Secretary of Defense as the Commander-in-Chief of the military -Not only is this unconstitutional, but you're doing th EXACT SAME THING. to attack this argument, I'll extend your contentions- What if he isn't qualified, isn't this also disrupting SOP. Your idea has as many if not more flaws than you propose" --- This wouldn't be unconstituional of an amendment was made. It wouldn't disrupt the seperation of powers, for the command of the military would still remain in the hands of the executive branch. He has to be qualified to run that position. The postion of Sect. of Defense is given to a man or woman with an appointment of the President and the approval from Congress. Though the President may not be qualified, the Sect. of Defense is, and having military experience, knows how to run the Armed Forces. He or she is the best qualified to command the military. "This argument is inherently flawed, because POTUS doesn't have as much power as your saying. But if you bothered to read your government book, you'd know that. Also, gates doesn't like an afghan pull-out you double-bind yourself" --- This is a logical fallacy. If you were paying attention in class you would realize this. You are attacking me personally, saying that I have not bothered to read the AP Government and Politics book. While the POTUS may not have supreme rule, he does have complete power on military decisions. Read the Constitution. Also, Gates is the Sect. of Defense, and his command ability is not decided on a single decision or belief. "If you claim to support the framers so much, then why don't you agree with article 2? , it clearly gives all power to POTUS. " --- You just said that the President does not have as much power as I was saying, and now you're saying Article 2 gives all power to the POTUS? You obviously don't know you're contradicting yourself. "Executive orders control policy and set agendas and are key to presidential power. They avoid political backlash, because you don't have to go through and opposition congress. This also speeds up the time-frame. It increases American leadership. Plus the president is the most informed on foreign affairs. XOs are quick and avoid bureaucracy. This is best for America. " --- Under bad leadership, XO are not the best for America. In fact, they can be the worst. It speeds up time frame, true, but placing command of the military under the Sect. of Defense allows this advantage to remain. "Contention 2- Joint chiefs of staff Because POTUS has the JCS to back him, we can't loose. if a terrorist sneezes, they know about it. I'll bring it up in my next speech" --- First of all, it "lose", not "loose". Secondly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a great idea. Now, take the President, switch him with the Sect. of Defense, and nothing changes except our efficency and effectivness. This is also abuse because you aren't giving me time to debate you're next speech, and thus are taking advantage of the situation. If you truley wanted a good debate, you would mention in your second speech, allowing me time to refute it. Now on to my arguments. The President as Commander-in-Chief is a good idea, especially during the time in which the Constituion was written. The first choice of President was George Washington, a man with military, political, and business experience. Though some Presidents have had all three of these qualities, though I can only think of two Presidents who all of the qualities. In the long run, the Sect. of Defense is the best choice for this postion. The more leaders of the military who are Sect. of Defense, the more lives are saved because of good command decisions. If you like America, if you love soldiers, if you are patriotic in any way, you would agree that the Sect. of Defense is the best man or woman for the job. Making an amendment to the Constitution to allow the Sect. of Defense the best.