Stand by for high seas, heavy rolls in NSW and JAGC

[Brett327]

I think at least one big part of the difference is the FAA is acting pursuant to an enabling statute; the authority it exercises, though organized under the executive, actually belongs to Congress (like most of our government agencies). POTUS can't, but Congress could easily designate victor airways and fix requirements for pilot licenses by statute (subject to bicameralism and presentment, of course), but they chose to delegate to an agency. CiC authority actually belongs to POTUS.

So, if the CinC's authority is absolute, then he could arbitrarily designate Ivanka as a Naval Aviator and TOPGUN grad?

 

[FormerRecruitingGuru]

FYSA

Ousted Navy secretary says Trump's war crimes intervention signals 'you can get away with things'

Ousted Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who was forced out of his role Sunday after President Donald Trump's intervention in a war crimes case, said in an interview Monday that the President's actions send a message that "you can get away with things."

www.cnn.com

 

[xmid]

"A war fighter is a profession of arms," he said. "And a profession of arms has standards that they have to be held to and they hold themselves to."

If this were any more than lip service there would have been 11 SEALs going to a board to decide the fate of their tridents.

 

[llnick2001]

So, if the CinC's authority is absolute, then he could arbitrarily designate Ivanka as a Naval Aviator and TOPGUN grad?

I don't think his authority is "absolute;" Congress still theoretically holds the purse strings and arguably has a role in authorizing long term uses of military force, though they seem unwilling or uninterested in flexing those muscles, but I suspect he probably could designate or order someone else to designate Ivanka. I'm also less well read on the nepotism/conflicts of interest issues that would be involved; there could be a statute that would apply (I'm too lazy to get on Westlaw and try and find it). I'm not an expert, but I can imagine easily enough how the FAA issue would be challenged in court; I can't say the same for the Ivanka = Maverick scenario.

 

[pilot_man]

So, if the CinC's authority is absolute, then he could arbitrarily designate Ivanka as a Naval Aviator and TOPGUN grad?

Could a CO designate a sailor as a plane captain even if they don’t meet the requirements? Sure, but there would be repercussions. Even the Airboss could designate Ivanka as a Naval Aviator, though he would have someone to answer to, POTUS however does not. That's how a chain of command works.

I don't get why you feel you can question the authority and actions of the guy at the top of your chain of command. If this was SECDEF making these calls would you oppose them the same?

 

[Swanee]

So, if the CinC's authority is absolute, then he could arbitrarily designate Ivanka as a Naval Aviator and TOPGUN grad?

Would you, as a CO, accept all quals/designations and sign off on her NATOPS qual? Could you be ordered to even if your NI finds her unqualified? Would you resign if CAG told you to do it or get out?

 

[Brett327]

Could a CO designate a sailor as a plane captain even if they don’t meet the requirements? Sure, but there would be repercussions. Even the Airboss could designate Ivanka as a Naval Aviator, though he would have someone to answer to, POTUS however does not. That's how a chain of command works.

I don't get why you feel you can question the authority and actions of the guy at the top of your chain of command. If this was SECDEF making these calls would you oppose them the same?

PC quals are governed by 4790, which the CO does not have the authority to override. I suppose you could make an exception for operational necessity, but that would be within very specific limitations, and would require justification at the end of the day. The key word here being... arbitrarily.

Clearly, POTUS is free to act within his authority. This is an academic exercise in civ-mil relationships.

 

[Brett327]

Would you, as a CO, accept all quals/designations and sign off on her NATOPS qual? Could you be ordered to even if your NI finds her unqualified? Would you resign if CAG told you to do it or get out?

You’re asking me if I would allow an unqualified person to operate one of my jets? Of course not, but the reductio ad absurdum illustrated in this example should make us all ponder what the limits of Executive Branch authority should look like, yes?

 

[pilot_man]

PC quals are governed by 4790, which the CO does not have the authority to override. I suppose you could make an exception for operational necessity, but that would be within very specific limitations, and would require justification at the end of the day. The key word here being... arbitrarily.

Clearly, POTUS is free to act within his authority. This is an academic exercise in civ-mil relationships.

The process is governed by 4790, a CO could ignore the process and would only have to answer to his CoC, be that CAG or the wing.

 

[Brett327]

The process is governed by 4790, a CO could ignore the process and would only have to answer to his CoC, be that CAG or the wing.

Yes, the ISIC would have jurisdiction. It’s still an instruction ( read, lawful order) from higher.

 

[Spekkio]

PC quals are governed by 4790, which the CO does not have the authority to override. I suppose you could make an exception for operational necessity, but that would be within very specific limitations, and would require justification at the end of the day. The key word here being... arbitrarily.

Clearly, POTUS is free to act within his authority. This is an academic exercise in civ-mil relationships.

The only thing absurd here is that you are comparing the POTUS's decision to prevent SECNAV and NSW from taking away a trained, qualified, and experienced SEAL's warfare pin as a final 'fuck you' on his way out of the Navy to plucking a random person off the street to fly jets with no training or qualifications to do so.

If the President over-stepped his bounds there is an app for that. But seeing as he has both the Constitutional authority to preside as CiC as well as to issue pardons, this wouldn't go anywhere.

 

[Brett327]

The only thing absurd here is that you are comparing the POTUS's decision to prevent SECNAV and NSW from taking away a trained, qualified, and experienced SEAL's warfare pin as a final 'fuck you' on his way out of the Navy to plucking a random person off the street to fly jets with no training or qualifications to do so.

If the President over-stepped his bounds there is an app for that. But seeing as he has both the Constitutional authority to preside as CiC as well as to issue pardons, this wouldn't go anywhere.

Settle down, tiger. It’s a thought experiment.

 

[Spekkio]

Settle down, tiger. It’s a thought experiment.

It's a relatively ridiculous one not grounded in reality and not at all similar to what happened in the Gallagher case.

Could the president point at someone and say 'you're a pilot now!'? Well, he could...is it lawful? I don't know. Off the cuff I would guess no because there's probably some federal statute somewhere that dictates the requirements to be allowed to fly an airplane.

 

[Brett327]

It's a relatively ridiculous one not grounded in reality and not at all similar to what happened in the Gallagher case.

Could the president point at someone and say 'you're a pilot now!'? Well, he could...is it lawful? I don't know. Off the cuff I would guess no because there's probably some federal statute somewhere that dictates the requirements to be allowed to fly an airplane.

If it’s not interesting to you, feel free to ignore it.

 

[Rugby_Guy]

It’s interesting to me that SecNav can say “let’s review this guys NSW pin” and that’s okay. When the SecNav’s boss says “don’t review his pin” all of a sudden it’s a civilian overstep in the civ-mil relationship.