jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (12 posts)

Why does the president need a private army?

  1. Gail Anthony profile image60
    Gail Anthonyposted 5 years ago

    Hidden in the health care bill, HR3590, there is a provision (Sec. 5210) for establishing a Ready Resrve Corps that answers to the president of the United States.  The veiled language as to what this reserve corps is as follows.
    `(1) PURPOSE- The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service's reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.
    I have not heard anyone talk about this aspect of the health care bill.  Why does the president need a private army?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Read your own post under PURPOSE.  smile

  2. Gail Anthony profile image60
    Gail Anthonyposted 5 years ago

    I have read it numerous times.  It still does not tell me why we need them.  The section has absolutely no specifics on their function.  I ask again why do we need them.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Simple language.  What are you, a republican or something?  lol

      1. Gail Anthony profile image60
        Gail Anthonyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        When I lived in a state that required me ro register with one party or the other, I was a card carrying Democrat, not that it makesa any difference. The question remains, why is a ready force necessary?

  3. Robephiles profile image87
    Robephilesposted 5 years ago

    Possibly, for public health issues that might cause mass panic.  But I don't know why this is such a big deal since the President already has a private army, and navy and air force.  The armed forces are at his command alone to begin with.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Simple explanation, thanks.  What are you, a democrat or something?  smile

    2. Gail Anthony profile image60
      Gail Anthonyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are correct.  The president is commander in chief.  So why is an additional force necessary?

    3. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      not his command alone, only the Marine Corps at his immediate dispatch acording to the act passed, and only for a limited time suposidly, but Lybia is proving that to be a farce also!

      I think it is for Public health Emergiences, or that was its intention, but as we have seen, They do as they please!  Soo, Who knows.

  4. Greg Sage profile image61
    Greg Sageposted 5 years ago

    Think Katrina.

    Think National Guard ready to go in, but parked and waiting because they're not ALLOWED to go in under the constitution until the Governor declares a state of emergency and requests federal assistance (which she willfully and purposefully refused to do.)

    So they sat... and waited...

    If there had been a non-military alternative corps, half of that fiasco would have been avoided.

    There are very good reasons for the constitutional limits on military solutions to domestic issues... and to the states' rights to their sovereignty, but unfortunately, it makes for some real problems in times of emergency.

    Now that's the practical answer... a bit more cynical one might look at Obama's apparently forgotten allusions to creating forced civic duty for all Americans to build a strong country and "create jobs."  The fact that Acorn was his poster-child for a model of "civic duty" and "community organizing" at the time has probably taken the shine off that apple, however.

    Getting sidetracked though... there are some very solid reasons to have non-military corps able to be deployed in times of domestic emergency.

  5. kateperez profile image76
    kateperezposted 5 years ago

    I can only imagine that a civilian corps is less well-trained, and more loose cannons that are put out there to force good citizens to the will of the commander in chief.  Although he does not command civilians, he will impose his will through this civilian corps.

  6. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    It's not necessary, duh!

    In fact, it's not constitutional!

    The US has a standing army - that's not Constitutional either!

    None of this crap is Constitutional, but only one candidate for presidency seems to care.

    ... (Ron Paul, for those of you still wondering)

 
working