According to the rules of grammar, is the Pres ALWAYS Commander in Chief?

Question

Article II, Section 2 has a clause inside two commas, which, when removed, implies that Congress must call the military into "actual Service" before he is C-i-C. English majors and lawyers, what is the correct reading, not necessarily supported by precedent?

Remember, this is rhetorical! Not an invite to abuse.

Answer 1

George has a very valid point - you must look at what is written in  light of 18th Century practice, not current. Many writers of the era tended to be more 'comma-happy' than would fit today's guidelines. However, you don't need to dissect the commas to determine the correct reading. The final clause to which you are referring (... when called into the actual Service of the United States; ...) must refer only to the Militia of the several stares. The Army and Navy are always in the actual service of the United States - they could never be called into actual service; they are already there.

The Militia remain under control of the states until they are called into actual Service - then the President becomes their CIC. Today, we would say 'Federalize the National Guard.'

Answer 2

First, you would need to examine this clause in the context of the conventional grammar of the late 18th century. While not my field of expertise the fact is that much of English as we know it today was used in different ways back then, some subtle and some profound.

Second, I believe that when Congress authorized a permanent standing Army & Navy the need to call them into service become moot.