In the United States, the Secretary of Defense, who is the chief commander
of the entire armed forces of the country (second to only the president)
cannot himself (or herself) be a military officer in active duty. As
wikipedia states it, "ensuring civilian control of the military, an
individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven
years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a
regular (i.e., non-reserve) component of an armed force."

The rationale for this in political theory is that this is a necessity
in a working democracy because it lessens the power of the military in
civilian government (thus ultimately lessening the chances of a military
coup.)

However, reading the requisites for the office of the President itself,
there is no mention of active military duty at all. As I see it, there's
no reason why a military officer in active duty could not be elected the
President of the United States.

This feels to me as being in drastic conflict with the principle of
civilian control of the military. As the Secretary of Defense answers
to the President, it would seem like a conflict of interest if the
President were a military officer (while the Secretary is not allowed
to be one, for the abovementioned reasons.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/20/2013 11:14 AM, Warp wrote:
> In the United States, the Secretary of Defense, who is the chief commander
> of the entire armed forces of the country (second to only the president)
> cannot himself (or herself) be a military officer in active duty. As
> wikipedia states it, "ensuring civilian control of the military, an
> individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven
> years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a
> regular (i.e., non-reserve) component of an armed force."
>
> The rationale for this in political theory is that this is a necessity
> in a working democracy because it lessens the power of the military in
> civilian government (thus ultimately lessening the chances of a military
> coup.)
>
> However, reading the requisites for the office of the President itself,
> there is no mention of active military duty at all. As I see it, there's
> no reason why a military officer in active duty could not be elected the
> President of the United States.
>
> This feels to me as being in drastic conflict with the principle of
> civilian control of the military. As the Secretary of Defense answers
> to the President, it would seem like a conflict of interest if the
> President were a military officer (while the Secretary is not allowed
> to be one, for the abovementioned reasons.)
>
Hmm. Except that this is kind of a defacto impossibility. An "active" 
officer has duties and requirements which would directly conflict with 
the ability to hold the office, which, if held, would, in turn, contains 
duties and responsibilities that would conflict with any 
actions/duties/etc. that they would need to perform as an officer. Its a 
bit unclear how any one could even get by with trying to do that, never 
mind find anyone in the chain of command of the military itself, which 
would allow it.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Hmm. Except that this is kind of a defacto impossibility. An "active" 
> officer has duties and requirements which would directly conflict with 
> the ability to hold the office, which, if held, would, in turn, contains 
> duties and responsibilities that would conflict with any 
> actions/duties/etc. that they would need to perform as an officer. Its a 
> bit unclear how any one could even get by with trying to do that, never 
> mind find anyone in the chain of command of the military itself, which 
> would allow it.

Is there a law that says that a military officer cannot run for president
(while being active in duty)?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

US President Dwight Eisenhower is an interesting case, following World War 2.
(He was the 'supreme' Allied military commander during the war.)

Here's what Wikipedia says:

"In 1948, Eisenhower became President of Columbia University...Approximately six
months after his installation, he became the informal chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon..."

"As the 1948 [US presidential] election approached, Eisenhower was repeatedly
urged by prominent citizens from both parties nationwide to run for President.
[Then-]President Truman even approached him, offering to serve as his
Vice-President if he would agree to run as President. [Eisenhower didn't do so
at the time, merely for personal reasons.]

"In December 1950, he took leave from the university to become the Supreme
Commander of NATO, and was given operational command of NATO forces in
Europe....in June 1952 he resigned his command at NATO to campaign
full-time....Eisenhower retired from active [military] service on May 31, 1952,
and resumed the university presidency, which he held until January 1953." [I.e.,
until his inauguration as President.]

It's not clear if Eisenhower was *continuously* on military active-duty prior to
his Presidency. But what this tells me is that there might be an 'unspoken
political rule' concerning the President having to relinquish his active-duty
status, as a prerequisite to holding the office. (Otherwise, the high public
*and* political opinions of Eisenhower at the time would have thrust him into
the Presidency, no questions asked.)

I can't think of an historical example of a military-man-as-President. (Not even
George Washington, although I could be wrong.) But apparently it might be
possible(?)

Post a reply to this message

> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Hmm. Except that this is kind of a defacto impossibility. An "active"
>> officer has duties and requirements which would directly conflict with
>> the ability to hold the office, which, if held, would, in turn, contains
>> duties and responsibilities that would conflict with any
>> actions/duties/etc. that they would need to perform as an officer. Its a
>> bit unclear how any one could even get by with trying to do that, never
>> mind find anyone in the chain of command of the military itself, which
>> would allow it.
>
> Is there a law that says that a military officer cannot run for president
> (while being active in duty)?
>
It's not a law, but an internal Directive from the Pentagon.

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/ethics_regulation/1344-10.html

Specifically this:

4.4. Holding and Exercising the Functions of a U.S. Government Civil 
Office Attained by Election or Appointment

4.4.1. Paragraph 4.4. applies to a civil office in the U.S. Government that:

4.4.1.1. Is an elective office;

4.4.1.2. Requires an appointment by the President; or

4.4.1.3. Is in a position on the executive schedule under sections 
5312-5317 of Reference (i).

4.4.2. A regular member, or retired regular or Reserve Component member 
on active duty under a call or order to active duty for more than 270 
days, may not hold or exercise the functions of civil office set out in 
subparagraph 4.4.1. unless otherwise authorized in paragraph 4.4. or by 
law.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 1/20/2013 1:14 PM, Warp wrote:
> In the United States, the Secretary of Defense, who is the chief commander
> of the entire armed forces of the country (second to only the president)
> cannot himself (or herself) be a military officer in active duty. As
> wikipedia states it, "ensuring civilian control of the military, an
> individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven
> years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a
> regular (i.e., non-reserve) component of an armed force."
>
> The rationale for this in political theory is that this is a necessity
> in a working democracy because it lessens the power of the military in
> civilian government (thus ultimately lessening the chances of a military
> coup.)
>
> However, reading the requisites for the office of the President itself,
> there is no mention of active military duty at all. As I see it, there's
> no reason why a military officer in active duty could not be elected the
> President of the United States.
>
> This feels to me as being in drastic conflict with the principle of
> civilian control of the military. As the Secretary of Defense answers
> to the President, it would seem like a conflict of interest if the
> President were a military officer (while the Secretary is not allowed
> to be one, for the above-mentioned reasons.)

Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an 
active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.

Federal law prohibits military members (whether enlisted or 
commissioned) from engaging in partisan political activity during duty 
hours, or for using their official status towards any partisan political 
goal.  It would be completely impossible for any general to mount an 
effective campaign for the presidency during his spare time.

And if the sitting president is himself running for re-election, he can 
issue any number of orders which make the general's election impossible 
(such as assigning the general to a location outside of the US).

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an 
> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.

That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)

> And if the sitting president is himself running for re-election, he can 
> issue any number of orders which make the general's election impossible 
> (such as assigning the general to a location outside of the US).

That sounds like abuse of authority for personal gain, which in itself
sounds illegal (or at least it should be.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/25/2013 10:15 AM, Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an
>> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.
>
> That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
> reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
> as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)

If the theory does not agree with the practice, the theory is wrong.

>> And if the sitting president is himself running for re-election, he can
>> issue any number of orders which make the general's election impossible
>> (such as assigning the general to a location outside of the US).
>
> That sounds like abuse of authority for personal gain, which in itself
> sounds illegal (or at least it should be.)

Or the president could observe that instead of performing his assigned 
duties, the general is doing campaign work (because, as I pointed out, 
doing both effectively is impossible).  Dereliction of duty is a 
court-martial offense.  So the president has him prosecuted under 
military law.  Perfectly legal, and not an abuse of authority, because a 
president who is not up for re-election could do the exact same thing.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> Running for president is a full-time job, plus some.  Being an
>> active-duty general is a full-time job, plus some.
>
> That may be so in practice, but in theory I don't think there's any
> reason (legal or otherwise) why a military officer couldn't be elected
> as the president (due to some unfathomable turn of events.)

Campaigning for a federal office is a full time job for at leasth 18 months.

Just like most people in the private sector, a serviceman on active duty 
would be FIRED for doing political work instead of his/her job.

(Unless I'm mistaken, I linked to the actual DoD policy on the matter).
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/2013 10:25 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Just like most people in the private sector, a serviceman on active duty
> would be FIRED for doing political work instead of his/her job.
>


In the UK it was a cheaper way out of the forces than buying yourself 
out. If an officer (it did not apply to the men, of course) put himself 
forward as a candidate at a parliamentary election he was automatically 
disbarred from being an officer in HM armed forces. A bit like the 
Chiltern Hundreds for our MPs.
Well, so I remember from memories from my childhood but I can't find any 
references.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message