Talk:United States Marine Corps/Part of the Navy discussion

It's actually the department of the Navy and Marine Corps. The updated the seal some years ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:903:8201:1700:D522:BBBF:583B:553C (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary
There was a disagreement about whether the United States Marine Corps was part of the United States Navy. It is not; it is part of the United States Department of the Navy; see Organization of the United States Marine Corps for more details.

Original discussion
Someone keeps on changing this page and adding incorrect information. The United States Marine Corps is part of the NAVY even if you don't like that fact. We go to the same flight schools, the same service academy, we have the same regulations (for the most part) and we have the same medical structure. We have the same relief societies and we have pretty much everything combined. We are part of the Navy, so stop saying we're not. Oh, and finally, take a good look at our Seal, do you notice that it says: "DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS" (http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Customes_Traditions/Emblem_Seal.htm) instead of "DEPARTMENT OF THE MARINE CORPS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." THE MARINES ARE PART OF THE NAVY. Stop changing this article to reflect your opinion. --RCK


 * My reverting your change had nothing to do with my "opinion" on the matter &mdash; I inherently lack one &mdash; and everything to do with how the edit was done. An IP who had already DELETED an entire paragraph from the Cold War article with no explanation whatsoever contradicted what had been written by known users and a quick search of a few websites turned up no evidence one way or another.


 * You'll find that most people are suspicious of edits by anonymous IPs as Wikipedia has a history of dealing with vandals and POV-mongers. It doesn't help when that same IP has just made severely questionable edits to another article with no explanation and then contradicts &mdash; also with no explanation &mdash; what had already been written in the article. If you want to avoid this in the future, two suggestions:
 * Register or &mdash; if you already have a username &mdash; log in.
 * At a minimum, put something sensible in the "Summary" box. When making edits that may appear controversial, leave a note in the talk page with supporting evidence.
 * If you do just one of these things, I &mdash; for one &mdash; will certainly hesitate to revert an edit. Especially one on a subject I know little about. -- nknight 01:15 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * The Marines are part of the DEPARTMENT of the Navy. The Department of the Navy is NOT the same thing as the US Navy.  Both the US Navy and the US Marine Corps are under that Department, so one is not part of the other.  See US Navy organization law and US Marine Corps organization law.  These specify that BOTH the US Navy and US Marine Corps are subordinate to the Department of the Navy (similar to how the US Army is subordinate to the Department of the Army and the US Air Force is subordinate to the Department of the Air Force).  Nowhere in the law is the US Marine Corps subordinate to or part of the US Navy.  Even without that technical distinction, the US Marine Corps is not part of the US Navy in common thought or in practice.


 * This should not evolve into a flame or edit war, because I have included the fact that the Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy (thus preserving the inferred intent of RCK in being factually correct) in the main article. -- Olathe November 23, 2003

The Marines are formally part of the Navy, right? If so, this article should say that. -- SJK
 * Done --the Epopt


 * Reverted with added details (see above for reasoning) -- Olathe November 23, 2003

Part of the Navy Argument AGAIN
The U.S. Marine Corps is a part of the U.S. Department of the Navy. The United States Marine Corps is not "Part of the U.S. Navy" and has not been since the enactment of the National Security Act of 1947. Before that time, the Marine Corps had the same standing as the Hospital Corps or other communities within the Navy. From 1947 onward, the Marine Corps has been a separate service having equal standing with The Army, Navy, and Air Force. The Commandant of the Marine Corps serves as one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Because of the above I changed "within the United States Navy" to "within the United States Department of the Navy." If you doubt the correctness of this, reference the National Security Act of 1947.--PvtDeth 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the Marine Corps ROTC and I can clearly see that the Navy uniform is alot different from the Marine Corps uniform. -Okita Soshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okita Soshi (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone did a careless merge and changed DoN to USN. I still like the original wording better where it stated in a separate sentence "Alongside the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps operates under the United States Department of the Navy". --Mmx1 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't we change it back to that? I will pending no objections.--PvtDeth 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the culprit. I changed it because while I was in the Marines, we were part of the Navy.  By that I don't mean that we both went to the same 'boot camp', wore the same uniforms, or even had the same commandant.  By that I mean that our chain of command went like this:  President, VP, SecDef, SecNav, Commandant, etc. Per the National Security act:
 * "SEC. 206. (a) [50 U.S.C. 409(b)] The term 'Department of the Navy' as used in this Act shall be construed to mean the Department of the Navy at the seat of government; the headquarters, United States Marine Corps; the entire operating forces of the United States Navy, including naval aviation, and of the United States Marine Corps, including the reserve components of such forces all field activities, headquarters, forces, bases, installations, activities and functions under the control or supervision of the Department of the Navy; and the United States Coast Guard when operating as a part of the Navy pursuant to law."
 * The Dec. 2005 II MEF Augmentation Command Element welcome aboard package states their chain of command on page 21 as having the Secretary of the Navy directly above the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Hey, maybe then Commanding commanding Brigadier General Andrew B. Davis got it wrong?  Maybe no one in his chain of command under him missed it, too?  If you like, you can call them up at 910-451-8950/51.
 * Thirdly, it friggin' says "Department of the Navy" on the seal of the Marines. So maybe I'm wrong.  In this case, I apologize.  If not, it seems weird to state "alongside the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps operates under the Department of the Navy."  At least to me.  Rhetth 22:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are thinking of the Navy as everything in the Dept of Navy under the SecNav. But the Navy itself is a military organization within the civilian Dept of the Navy. It is in that sense that they mean the USMC is alongside the Navy in the Dept of Navy. As you pointed out, the COmmandant reports directly to the SecNav, who is a civilian, not a naval officer. - BillCJ 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The current sentence sets the context - USN and USMC both operate under DoN. --Mmx1 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mmx1 &mdash; I'd like to see the wording "Alongside the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps operates under the United States Department of the Navy" reinstated. &mdash; User: (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that I was mistaken. When I said that the marines were a 'part of the navy', I meant ot say, the marines were 'part of the dept. of the navy'.  Still, to state Alongside the US Navy, the Marines operate under the DoN sounds strange to me.  If the Marines operate under the Dept. of the Navy, isn't it redundant to say that they operate alongside the Navy?  The sentance lends itself to misunderstanding to laypeople who aren't intimate the pecularities of the National Security Act.  If there is going to be a comment about the Naval integration of the Marines, it should provide more context as to the relationship, instead of a vague notion of proximity (alongside) to define the command structure, which has a long history and plays a part in the function, lineage, and mission capabilities of both the Navy and the Marines.  For example, the recent investigations into Marine conduct in combat areas are done by the NCIS, a naval organization (which nevertheless employes marines in the unit).  So, with this in mind, I propose a wording similar to the one used in the DOD article:  "'The Marine Corps remained a separate service under the Department of the Navy after President Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947.'"  Rhetth 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The WP:RFC is still up on the main board, sorry I didn't see this sooner. I'm also sorry to disappoint those who believe the USMC is a separate branch of the military, they are under the Secretary of the Navy. Here are a couple of references, one a brief history of the corps which mentions nothing about them becoming an independent branch circa 1947 which I'm sure they'd mention. The US Army, USAF, and DOD recorded that event. The second is a DoD leadership chart, you'll notice that the three branches are Army, Navy, and Air Force with the USMC under the Navy. (That's what a Marine is, they are very well trained shipboard security AND the Navy's landing force.)
 * A Brief History of the USMC from:
 * usmc.mil
 * Department of Defense:
 * from army.mil DoD public records.
 * They do have a spot on the JCS but this doesn't change the fact that there is no Secretary of the Marine Corps. Anynobody 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Secretaries are not military memebers, they are civilians appointed to run their respective Departments, not officers promoted to run branches. So no, the Marine Corps is not its own "Department" but no branch is a "Department". Departments are civilian organizations and different branches fall under them. For this reason both the Naval and Marine Corps branches of the United States military fall under the civilan Department of the Navy. This is why no Marine falls under the Comand of any Sailor, they are seperate branches both under the legal and administrative authority of the same Executive Department, in this case the Department of the Navy. The highest ranking member of the Marine Corps, the Commandant, does not fall under the authrority of the highest ranking Naval officer, the Chief of Naval Operations. In no govement publication or budget will you see the Marine Corps labled as falling under the same "branch" as the Navy. To say that IRS and the Secret Service, back when it was still Department of the Treasury, are the same branch of goverment because they both fall under the same Department is obviously incorrect. The same could be said of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Geological Survey under the Department of the Interior. They have seperate missions, seperate chains of command; they both just fall under the same civilan govermental department for administrative and budgetary reasons. NeoFreak 13:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 So maybe we can come to some concrete conclusions here. Of course, in my opinion, administrative authority supercedes military authority, because they frame the environment in which military decisions are made. Administrative authority is another word for political influence, such as when the administration wants more 'maneuver' warfighting, they budget more decentralized weaponry, more research towards that goal, and support the promotion (both literal and figurative) of those ideas and those people with those ideas. Alternatively the administration can depress an 'attrition' style of warfighting by the same methods. This power of administration can and will indirectly influence the military authorities decisions, as can be seen by the Walter Reed scandal. Can we use this information to better eludicate the wikipedia article readers? I can see how the current sentance "Alongside the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps operates under the Department of the Navy", but this explaination assumes the intimate understanding of the administrative and military authorities. While the sentence implies that the U.S. Navy (meaning U.S. Naval forces, not administrative 'forces') operates alongside the Marines Corps (meaning the entire Marine Corps organization), but then it says that the Marine Corps (meaning the entire organization) operates under the Dept. of the Navy (meaning the administrative authority). So it's sort of a logic game, where you have the fill in the blanks. U.S. Navy & Marine Corps are mutually exclusive _and_ the Marine Corps is dependent on the Dept. of the Navy _and_ U.S. Navy may or may not equal the Dept. of the Navy. We could use a little clairification here, so I propose this sentance: "Independent of U.S. Naval forces, the Marine Corps operates under the administrative authority of the Department of the Navy." Rhetth 12:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Marine Corps do not fall under the Naval military command (they are not a part of the Naval military command).
 * The Marine Corps does fall under Naval administrative command (they are a part of the Naval administrative authority).
 * There hasn't been any discussion against this move, so I made the changes. How does it sound?  Rhetth 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Update
Hmmm, the sentance says that because the USMC works alongside the US Navy, it's a part of the DON for admin purposes, but that's not why; it's because of the National Security Act of 1947, so I'm not going to go into all that detail, but I'm going to reword it to "'While administratively under the Department of the Navy, the US Marine Corps is a seperate branch of the military, often working closely with US Naval forces for training, transportation, and logistic purposes. '"

24April2009 Not in source
The source provided in this article states the following:

SEC. 206. (a) [50 U.S.C. 409(b)] The term "Department of the Navy" as used in this Act shall be construed to mean the Department of the Navy at the seat of government; the headquarters, United States Marine Corps; the entire operating forces of the United States Navy, including naval aviation, and of the United States Marine Corps, including the reserve components of such forces all field activities, headquarters, forces, bases, installations, activities and functions under the control or supervision of the Department of the Navy; and the United States Coast Guard when operating as a part of the Navy pursuant to law.

This source describes the fact that the Marine Corps is under the Department of the Navy, but does not state that it is a separate branch. We all know it is a separate branch, now let's find an actual source that states this.ndyguy (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That reference mentions Marine Corps multiple times. It says the USMC is one of the Armed Forces, i.e. a separate branch or service. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it does mention the Marine Corps multiple times. However, in the citation given "SEC. 206. (a) [50 U.S.C. 409(b)]" it makes no reference to armed forces, branches, services, etc.  i.e. not in source. ndyguy (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Point. I missed the section call out. The definations part lists it as an  "Armed Force". -Fnlayson (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While I think it's fairly asinine to need a ref for that (do we have to reference that grass is usually a shade of green?), I will say that there are a couple of refs at Talk:United States Marine Corps/Part of the Navy discussion that may be suitable to your view. Also, when this discussion section is to be archived, I intend to place it in that particular archive, since it runs in the same vein.  bahamut0013  words deeds   05:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fnlayson, I guess it does state that in the definitions section. And Bahumut, you're feelings aside, I challenged that fact because it is an important statement and per WP:BURDEN it therefore needs a source. Not just a recycled source pointing to a section that doesn't support the fact, but the actual section that does support the fact.ndyguy (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)