NYT Editorial: “our” commander-in-chief?

This is superb editorial. Here’s a bit of it:

WE hear constantly now about “our commander in chief.” The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.”

But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army. ...

The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

H/T to WTM.


I wrote something very close to this in a letter to the editor of my local paper in the run-up to the invasion.

They printed the letter and, for awhile, stopped referring to the president as "our" commander-in-chief, but they probably need reminding again. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) talks about the "militarization of our thought" since 9/11 and this is a prime example.