of superior military talents.[1] But if his assuming the actual command depended upon the assent of congress, what was to be done, when an invasion, or insurrection took place during the recess of congress? Besides; the very power of restraint might be so employed, as to cripple the executive department, when filled by a man of extraordinary military genius. The power of the president, too, might well be deemed safe; since he could not, of himself, declare war, raise armies, or call forth the militia, or appropriate money for the purpose; for these powers all belonged to congress.[2] In Great Britain, the king is not only commander-in-chief of the army, and navy, and militia, but he can declare war; and, in time of war, can raise armies and navies, and call forth the militia of his own mere will.[3] So, that (to use the words of Mr. Justice Blackstone) the sole supreme government and command of the militia within all his majesty's realms and dominions, and of all forces by sea and land, and of all forts and places of strength, ever was and is the undoubted right of his majesty; and both houses or either house of parliament cannot, nor ought to pretend to the same.[4] The only power of check by parliament is, the refusal of supplies; and this is found to be abundantly sufficient to protect the nation against any war against the sense of the nation, or any serious abuse of the power in modern times.[5]
- ↑ 2 Elliot's Debates, 366.
- ↑ 3 Elliot's Debates, 103.
- ↑ 3 Elliot's Debates, 103; 1 Black. Comm. 262, 408 to 421.
- ↑ 1 Black. Comm. 262, 263.
- ↑ During the war with Great Britain in 1812, it was questioned, whether the president could delegate his right to command the militia, by authorizing another officer to command them, when they were called into the public service. (8 Mass. Reports, 548, 550.) If he cannot, this extraordinary result would follow, that if different detachments of militia
