constitution class?

[3D Master]

Actually its the Secretary General who is the head of the UN.

Yeah, that's what I said.

But the priciple is still the same, being President or Secretary General is only a title that is used to refer to someone who is the head of something like the Federation or the UN.

No, it's NOT the same. The Secretary General isn't actually in charge of anything in important. He's more of a figurehead, a PR man than anything else. The Federation President we see in the movies and 24th century, isn't the (figure)head, is the actual leader, even the commander and chief of the military. He is the man in charge of the executive branch of the Federation government, a government that supersedes on many things those of member worlds.

The UN has no such branch, it can't tell any members what to do. They can make resolutions that allows members to "legally" attack other members, even though they don't actually need such a resolution to actually attack anyone as the US has so aptly proven.

The Federation at the time of Journey to Babel is the same as the UN. It has no executive branch, no unified government that gets to order members around, as the episode so very aptly demonstrates. Therefor, there is also no head of such a non-existent branch.

4) From what we seen the role of the UFP President is similar to that of a Prime Minister in a Parliamentary form of Government. If you have evidence of the contrary please present it.

Yeah, the UFP President is essentially the US president. And such a position simply does not exist during Journey to Babel, and thus before.

Then who was in charge then?

There's nobody in charge, that's the ffing point.

Who ordered the ambassadors & delegates together in Journey to Babel?

Nobody ordered them. A mutual decision was made that a decision needed to be made on the membership, and so a date was said, and so they went.

Who ordered the Enterprise to pick up he ambassadors & delegates?

Whatever Commodore or Admiral that the Enterprise falls under.

Who does Capt. Kirk work for, and who do they answer to?

At first, Kirk worked for UESPA and it answered partially to Starfleet Command and partially to Earth Command. The Federation, Starfleet and member fleets are going through an overhaul at the time, and their in a transition period that must have been a bureaucratic nightmare - the member fleets disappearing into one Federation Starfleet.

Later, Kirk works for Starfleet, and Starfleet answers to the Federation Council.

Starfleet in Journey to Babel, who controls SF?

Whatever Admirals are in charge, who answer to the Federation Council.

During to Journey to Babel, if the Federation & Starfleet had to go to war. Who would make this decision?

They wouldn't have "gone to war" they would have deployed a defense around the new member planet, and they may have had to fight the Tellarites of, if they continued their exploiting ways. Whether or not a full state of war against the Tellarites would have occurred, would have had to be decided in a new meeting by the Federation Council.

The execution of these would be done by the Admirals in charge of Starfleet.

 

[StolenThunder]

Seriously, do you have some sort of learning disability that we should know about? Because people say one thing and you reinterpret it into something you want to hear and then comment on that.

You should ask yourself that question, not me.

Cut it out please, guys.

 

[Nerys Myk]

1) The information that establishes the founding date for the office of UFP President can be found here: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Federation_President#Background

2) His duties can be found here: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Federation_President

3) A transcript of "Journey to Babel can be found here: http://www.voyager.cz/tos/epizody/45journeytobabeltrans.htm

Please point out the dialog than indicates there could not be a Federation President. I can find nothing that supports or denies the existance of that office.

 

[robjkay]

Actually its the Secretary General who is the head of the UN.

Yeah, that's what I said.

But the priciple is still the same, being President or Secretary General is only a title that is used to refer to someone who is the head of something like the Federation or the UN.

No, it's NOT the same. The Secretary General isn't actually in charge of anything in important. He's more of a figurehead, a PR man than anything else. The Federation President we see in the movies and 24th century, isn't the (figure)head, is the actual leader, even the commander and chief of the military. He is the man in charge of the executive branch of the Federation government, a government that supersedes on many things those of member worlds.

The UN has no such branch, it can't tell any members what to do. They can make resolutions that allows members to "legally" attack other members, even though they don't actually need such a resolution to actually attack anyone as the US has so aptly proven.

The Federation at the time of Journey to Babel is the same as the UN. It has no executive branch, no unified government that gets to order members around, as the episode so very aptly demonstrates. Therefor, there is also no head of such a non-existent branch.



There's nobody in charge, that's the ffing point.

Nobody ordered them. A mutual decision was made that a decision needed to be made on the membership, and so a date was said, and so they went.

Whatever Commodore or Admiral that the Enterprise falls under.

At first, Kirk worked for UESPA and it answered partially to Starfleet Command and partially to Earth Command. The Federation, Starfleet and member fleets are going through an overhaul at the time, and their in a transition period that must have been a bureaucratic nightmare - the member fleets disappearing into one Federation Starfleet.

Later, Kirk works for Starfleet, and Starfleet answers to the Federation Council.

Starfleet in Journey to Babel, who controls SF?

Whatever Admirals are in charge, who answer to the Federation Council.

During to Journey to Babel, if the Federation & Starfleet had to go to war. Who would make this decision?

They wouldn't have "gone to war" they would have deployed a defense around the new member planet, and they may have had to fight the Tellarites of, if they continued their exploiting ways. Whether or not a full state of war against the Tellarites would have occurred, would have had to be decided in a new meeting by the Federation Council.

The execution of these would be done by the Admirals in charge of Starfleet.

Love your answers, the only problem is there is nothing to support what you claim.

You keep on saying that the Federation at the time of Journey to Babel is the same as the UN. Yet the UN has someone called a Secretary General who is the spokesperson and leader of the United Nations. Hence how can the Federation be the same if it as you say does not have any sort of leader or head of state? This is something we have been trying to point out to you! How can the Federation that have numerous Ambassadors and delegates funtion as one without a president or someone who is the head of state?

You said that it was a mutual decision for ambassadors & delegates to come together or get together on the Enterprise. But here is the problem being who got them together to make this mutual decision? I highly doubt all these ambassadors & delegates (32 Ambassadors & 114 delegates and more then likely there were more) simply all think alike.

The Commodore or Admiral who ordered the Enterprise to pick up these ambassadors & delegates have to answer to someone. Kind of like a chain of command, so who is at the top of this chain of command? I highly doubt it's 32 Ambassadors & 114 delegates! Which comes down to the what I have been trying to say, which is that there has to be someone in charge overall of SF, the ambassadors, the delegates, starfleet ships.

Where in ST does it say that the Federation, Starfleet and member fleets are going through an overhaul. I do not recall any such thing.

You said that the Admirals are in charge of SF, who answer to the Federation Council. So who does the Federation Council answer to? Again there has to be someone who is the head of the council.

You did not answer my question which was Federation & Starfleet had to go to war. Who would make this decision? I.e. if the Federation had to go to war with the Klingons or the Romulans, who decides or makes the decision to mobilize there military forces? Who decides the funding? Any execution of that is done by the Admirals in charge of Starfleet have to come from somewhere, someone like a president.

You have the Klingons who have a Chancellor who is the leader of the Klingon High Council and runs the empire. You have the Romulans who have a Proetor who presides over the Romulan Senate and runs the Empire. So who is the leader or who presides over the Federation Council? Someone who would say hey I am the leader of the Federation, I speak on behalf of the Federation. Being I highly doubt that the Klingon Chancellor & the Romulan Proetor is going to sit down with 32 or more Ambassadors and 114 or more delegates. LoL, the Klingons and Romulans would just laugh and invade the Federation being there was no sort of leadership.

 

[3D Master]

Love your answers, the only problem is there is nothing to support what you claim.

Everything supports my claim, you just refuse to accept it.

You keep on saying that the Federation at the time of Journey to Babel is the same as the UN. Yet the UN has someone called a Secretary General who is the spokesperson and leader of the United Nations. Hence how can the Federation be the same if it as you say does not have any sort of leader or head of state? This is something we have been trying to point out to you! How can the Federation that have numerous Ambassadors and delegates funtion as one without a president or someone who is the head of state?

Oh, boohoo, my words weren't correct to the literal extreme, I'm so sorry, but I'm not anally retentive.

Let me point a few things out to you (actually, repeat for the umpteenth time, but you know, reading, difficult):

1. The Secretary-General is NOT a leader. He's PR guy.

2. For there to be a head of state, you actually have to HAVE a state first. The Federation is not a state by Journey to Babel, it's the UN in space at that point. So there's also no head of state.

You said that it was a mutual decision for ambassadors & delegates to come together or get together on the Enterprise. But here is the problem being who got them together to make this mutual decision? I highly doubt all these ambassadors & delegates (32 Ambassadors & 114 delegates and more then likely there were more) simply all think alike.

Actually, they WOULD, think alike. Enough of them at least. When a situation arises that according to the rules a session has to be held, a session is held, and these rules they agreed upon at the founding of the Federation (and may or may not have been amended in the meantime). One does not require a president, especially seeing as a pr guy like the Secretary-General is the only thing the Federation at that time could have, is NOT a president.

The Commodore or Admiral who ordered the Enterprise to pick up these ambassadors & delegates have to answer to someone. Kind of like a chain of command, so who is at the top of this chain of command?

The highest admiral.

I highly doubt it's 32 Ambassadors & 114 delegates! Which comes down to the what I have been trying to say, which is that there has to be someone in charge overall of SF, the ambassadors, the delegates, starfleet ships.

The highest admiral. And only the Federation Council can give him orders, and you do not need a president for that.

Where in ST does it say that the Federation, Starfleet and member fleets are going through an overhaul. I do not recall any such thing.

It doesn't require ST to "say" anything. This is a simple thing of logical deduction. In the first season Earth is still ordered around by UESPA. In Journey to Babel the UFP is still the UN in space. By the time of the movies the Federation has a fully functional executive branch, and a president that is the commander and chief of Starfleet. Do the math.

You said that the Admirals are in charge of SF, who answer to the Federation Council. So who does the Federation Council answer to? Again there has to be someone who is the head of the council.

No, there's no one at the head of the Council. The Council doesn't answer to anyone, just like the legislative branch of modern democracies does not answer to the executive branch. A separation of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government, a system of checks and balances is the norm. In fact, when a legislative branch makes a law, the executive branch has to implement it. So looking at it one way, the executive branch, and thus the president, is UNDER the legislative branch. Hence why they can impeach the president, and other such things.

You did not answer my question which was Federation & Starfleet had to go to war. Who would make this decision?

I did answer it, and I'll repeat it again: the Federation Council.

I.e. if the Federation had to go to war with the Klingons or the Romulans, who decides or makes the decision to mobilize there military forces?

The Federation Council, and when it comes to individual member world's militaries, those member worlds.

Who decides the funding?

The individual member worlds. Much like individual member worlds decide the amount of funding they supply to the UN, or whether they indeed go to war at all. The only difference is, that unlike the UN, the Federation does have its own military/star fleet, known as Starfleet. When the Federation was still in UN mode, the Federation could order Starfleet to fight, but not any of the individual member militaries/star fleets. They would have to decide that themselves (and probably be placed under Starfleet command for the duration of the war.)

Any execution of that is done by the Admirals in charge of Starfleet have to come from somewhere, someone like a president.

Nope, they come from the council. Just like when the UN has accepted a resolution that military force is allowed, no UN leader needs to tell individual member countries to mobilize. Any country that wishes to do so, can do so themselves.

You have the Klingons who have a Chancellor who is the leader of the Klingon High Council and runs the empire. You have the Romulans who have a Proetor who presides over the Romulan Senate and runs the Empire. So who is the leader or who presides over the Federation Council?

There is no leader that presides over the Federation Council, just like no leader presides over the parliaments in our democratic worlds. The Klingons and the Romulans are not democracies.

Someone who would say hey I am the leader of the Federation, I speak on behalf of the Federation.

Doesn't exist, just like the UN has no such person. The Secretary-General can only be a public face, and professes of what he things the UN stands for - more accurately, what a majority of the member countries stand for, or what it should stand for according to him. However, he is not the leader of the UN and can never claim to be that; he certainly cannot speak for any member states.

Being I highly doubt that the Klingon Chancellor & the Romulan Proetor is going to sit down with 32 or more Ambassadors and 114 or more delegates. LoL, the Klingons and Romulans would just laugh and invade the Federation being there was no sort of leadership.

The chancellor is indeed not going to sit down with 32 or more Ambassadors, he'll be sitting down with just one, if he is going to sit down at all. This one, or a small group of Ambassadors, would have instructions from the Federation Council what they could, or could not do. The Klingons may indeed have tried to invade the Federation - and promptly got their asses kicked.

The Preator did not speak with ANYONE in the Federation, indeed, NO Romulan spoke with the anyone in the Federation for a century.

One does not require a president, for there to be a leadership. Nor does one even require a Council/Parliament to be dangerous enough you don't just invade - just look at NATO.

 

[Maurice]

Iinstead of all this pointless vitriol, why not just quote the ACTUAL DIALOG from episodes that support the points you're trying to make? If you can't it, it's supposition. Does any episode say there Federation didn't have a President around the time of Journey to Babel? If not, that doesn't mean that it did or didn't just that it wasn't stated. One can infer that it likely had one based on Star Trek VI, but it's still a supposition, logical or not. Etc.

 

[Timo]

We're talking slightly different worlds here.

As usual, 3DMaster is building a mental construct that is plausible, and then saying that since it is plausible, it must be true. And of course that is true because the entire subject matter is completely fictional and any non-conflicting thought construct that fits the fictional evidence is as good as any other.

It's just that 3DMaster's wording creates the impression that this would be the only valid mental construct possible. Which is never true.

The merits of the various constructs can be judged in different ways. Personally, I find no merit in a construct that clings solely to the idea that the 23rd century of the Star Trek universe must work the same way as the 20th of ours. But I do find it a valid argument that some things in the future would resemble the way things were done in the 20th century - if only because the people who wrote the future did so in the 20th century.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[3D Master]

Iinstead of all this pointless vitriol, why not just quote the ACTUAL DIALOG from episodes that support the points you're trying to make? If you can't it, it's supposition. Does any episode say there Federation didn't have a President around the time of Journey to Babel? If not, that doesn't mean that it did or didn't just that it wasn't stated. One can infer that it likely had one based on Star Trek VI, but it's still a supposition, logical or not. Etc.

Yeah, that's what I said. You're the type of people who refuse to accept anything unless it is explicitly stated, even if that is the only possible conclusion one can come to based upon the facts of an episode. Even if the position you adhere to, because of that, makes not a lick of sense whatsoever, we'll simply put our fingers in our ears, take a hammer and smash it on our heads until or logic circuits are broken, and go, "Ladida! It isn't explicitly said! Ladida! Therefor I do not have to listen! Ladida! Therefor the episode and anyone who supports the facts of the episode and common sense is wrong! Ladida! Only explicit dialog counts!"

Excuse me, but I actually like to use my brain, and actually see the events of an episode for what they are, not demand everything be spelled out to me using small words.

 

[captcalhoun]

there's always a council leader, or a commitee chairman or something who calls the thing to order, calls for the votes and says the motion is passed or has failed. whether they're called the President, the Chair, the Senior Senator or whatever, some bugger's in charge and given the presence of two UFP Presidents in the 23C in 2286 and 2291 i see no need for said Federation Council leader NOT to be called the President of the United Federation of Planets. anythng else is simply adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to the situation.

all of this is really rather irrelevant to when the starship class was first called "Constitution" however...

 

[3D Master]

We're talking slightly different worlds here.

As usual, 3DMaster is building a mental construct that is plausible, and then saying that since it is plausible, it must be true. And of course that is true because the entire subject matter is completely fictional and any non-conflicting thought construct that fits the fictional evidence is as good as any other.

No, not plausible, cold hard fact. There is absolutely no way in hell, the Federation of Journey to Babel has an unified executive branch that supersedes any individual member world's government, therefor it can't have a president.

A place, where the ruling council can't tell a member world to stop exploiting and using another world, a possible soon to be member world, and even then they can't tell them to stop, but have to send the military to protect that new member world from the older member world, can not possibly have a functional unified government.

How difficult is it to grasp this?

This is not "plausible", this is fact. Any other way of explaining the events and dialogue of Journey to Babel, having an over arching Federation government, is ridiculous.

It's just that 3DMaster's wording creates the impression that this would be the only valid mental construct possible. Which is never true.

A Tellarite accusing Sarek that the Vulcan wants Starfleet to protect the new member from Tellarite exploitation, and Sarek confirming it, is not a mental construct. It's a cold hard fact.

The merits of the various constructs can be judged in different ways. Personally, I find no merit in a construct that clings solely to the idea that the 23rd century of the Star Trek universe must work the same way as the 20th of ours. But I do find it a valid argument that some things in the future would resemble the way things were done in the 20th century - if only because the people who wrote the future did so in the 20th century.

Which are the other constructs, especially robjkay's ones where he for some reason can't fathom anything but a US-type government with a "clear leader", even if there are plenty examples on this world that there are other options.

Now mine however, has a deridingly mix of 20th and 21st century concepts, and several different things. Most notably a UN with its own army to command, it can field even against its own members (and one least interpretative explanation of Kirk's words about Garth of Izar's battle that kept the Federation from being broken suggest they not only can, but have) is a quite a chunk different from our 20th and 21st century counterparts.

It would be like the US and/or Russians or whoever for the umpteenth time using their veto right to screw over the UN's majority decision - especially when it's just to spite another member and not a valid reason - and the UN majority basically gives them the finger and decides to go ahead with the decision anyway. The US/Russians/whoever saying they'll secede or even use military voice to try to force their veto through - and then UN ordering the UN army, navy and airforce to take them down and force them to fall in line.

Completely different from the 20th century. Indeed, the least interpretive - still requires some interpretation and reading between the lines - but the least fancy interpretive explanation would indeed suggest that is exactly what happened with Garth of Izar and his famous battle. (Interestingly, this would mean two of Kirk's heroes, Garth of Izar and Lincoln, have made essentially the same decision, which rather implies the least interpretive explanation is the correct one.)

there's always a council leader, or a commitee chairman or something who calls the thing to order, calls for the votes and says the motion is passed or has failed. whether they're called the President, the Chair, the Senior Senator or whatever, some bugger's in charge and given the presence of two UFP Presidents in the 23C in 2286 and 2291 i see no need for said Federation Council leader NOT to be called the President of the United Federation of Planets. anythng else is simply adding an unnecessary layer of complexity to the situation.

all of this is really rather irrelevant to when the starship class was first called "Constitution" however...

Except for the UMPTEENTH time, that the Federation President is NOT the committee chairman, or the chair, or the senior senator. The Federation President is the leader of the EXECUTIVE branch of the Federation, the Command and Chief of Starfleet, NOT the guy in charge of directing the Federation Council (the LEGISLATIVE branch) when they are in session. There is such a thing as an extremely necessary division between the two.

 

[Timo]

No, not plausible, cold hard fact.

How are those two supposed to be different?

None of your so-called conclusions represent the sole possible interpretation of events and factoids, which wouldn't be a problem if their only function was to explain away individual events and factoids. However, the world you have constructed is so fundamentally at odds with what Star Trek is that it calls for a thorough reassessment of all the individual pieces of conclusion. Some might be retained, regardless of whether they represent the strongest of weakest cases, while others might be dropped, not on their individual merit but so that they will fit a plausible larger whole.

But unless that is done, the sum total just plain isn't Star Trek any more.

To argue that the UFP doesn't have a President in the 2260s when it has a President in the 2280s is an extraordinary statement that requires extraordinary proof. And just saying "Presidential power wasn't evident" is far from sufficient, as a weak President would fit the evidence much better than a non-Presidential system. After all, we don't get to see a strong President at any later time, either.

See? Another entirely plausible construct, out of half a dozen possibilities out there. And it's closer to the path of least resistance because it is consistent with what is being told elsewhere and elsewhen. Yes, Trek was and remains episodic - but the different episodes, written by different people with different ideas, still are supposed to take place in the same universe. It just won't do that the basics of the universe change from episode to episode merely because the practicalities of TV writing in reality cause them to do exactly that. Reality simply isn't the standard by which Star Trek's continuity and content should be judged.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[RyanKCR]

While this current discussion is fascinating I'd like to get back to the class name of the Enterprise. I was waiting to see if anyone wanted to comment on my post here. I personally think the movie Enterprise was a Constitution and the my counter-argument to the door sign in ST II is in my post which quotes about it being the class of cadets going to be assigned to the Enterprise and my reasoning as to why that is true. Makes you wonder about how Starfleet Academy runs.

 

[trevanian]

I still think the Enterprise class could refer to the simulator (which was obviously built to resemble the Enterprise), or to the "Enterprise class" of cadets who would soon be posted to that ship (doesn't it make sense for a group of cadets to be trained together, in anticipation of being posted to a given ship?).

I agree with this especially in light of McCoy's line earlier about it being easier to put an experienced crew back on the ship.

There WAS a bit of a redress on the bridge between the simulator and the regular scenes, I do remember that being mentioned after production wrapped. Maybe the label on the door is different, something like that, but it was a lot more subtle than the painting and extra pieces put in earlier for the RELIANT bridge shoot.

So I don't think the simulator is meant to simulate the Enterprise itself, but rather the class of ship it is, i.e., Enterprise class (which incidentally, is WHY the sign is there, it is Lee Cole acknowledging ON-SCREEN Probert's intention, and why that isn't enough to cause folks to give up on this constitution in features business, I will never EVER understand.

 

[RyanKCR]

I still think the Enterprise class could refer to the simulator (which was obviously built to resemble the Enterprise), or to the "Enterprise class" of cadets who would soon be posted to that ship (doesn't it make sense for a group of cadets to be trained together, in anticipation of being posted to a given ship?).

I agree with this especially in light of McCoy's line earlier about it being easier to put an experienced crew back on the ship.

There WAS a bit of a redress on the bridge between the simulator and the regular scenes, I do remember that being mentioned after production wrapped. Maybe the label on the door is different, something like that, but it was a lot more subtle than the painting and extra pieces put in earlier for the RELIANT bridge shoot.

So I don't think the simulator is meant to simulate the Enterprise itself, but rather the class of ship it is, i.e., Enterprise class (which incidentally, is WHY the sign is there, it is Lee Cole acknowledging ON-SCREEN Probert's intention, and why that isn't enough to cause folks to give up on this constitution in features business, I will never EVER understand.

Then why did McCoy say, "Admiral, wouldn't it be easier to put an experienced crew back on the ship?" That plus the sign indicated that this group of cadets was assigned to the Enterprise.

 

[trevanian]

I agree with this especially in light of McCoy's line earlier about it being easier to put an experienced crew back on the ship.

There WAS a bit of a redress on the bridge between the simulator and the regular scenes, I do remember that being mentioned after production wrapped. Maybe the label on the door is different, something like that, but it was a lot more subtle than the painting and extra pieces put in earlier for the RELIANT bridge shoot.

So I don't think the simulator is meant to simulate the Enterprise itself, but rather the class of ship it is, i.e., Enterprise class (which incidentally, is WHY the sign is there, it is Lee Cole acknowledging ON-SCREEN Probert's intention, and why that isn't enough to cause folks to give up on this constitution in features business, I will never EVER understand.

Then why did McCoy say, "Admiral, wouldn't it be easier to put an experienced crew back on the ship?" That plus the sign indicated that this group of cadets was assigned to the Enterprise.

You're inferring quite a lot, and maybe focusing on the wrong aspects. That dialog is there principally to drive the development of the Kirk character so the audience understands his ambivalence about his current position (and lets Shatner get back into kirkisaprick mode, which he mastered in TMP.)

If the Enterprise has been designated a training vessel, McCoy's comment is completely nonsensical, and yet Spock is clearly saying later that he is content to command the ship on a training mission ... if it were not a training mission, the cadets wouldn't be there, and presumably neither would Spock.

The sign tells folks where the simulator is for this class of ship. If you want to believe that they put the sign up so people don't walk in there to take a test for, say, the HOOD (if it is a starship class or con class), fine, but I don't see that anything sensible supports that view.

 

[RyanKCR]

There WAS a bit of a redress on the bridge between the simulator and the regular scenes, I do remember that being mentioned after production wrapped. Maybe the label on the door is different, something like that, but it was a lot more subtle than the painting and extra pieces put in earlier for the RELIANT bridge shoot.

So I don't think the simulator is meant to simulate the Enterprise itself, but rather the class of ship it is, i.e., Enterprise class (which incidentally, is WHY the sign is there, it is Lee Cole acknowledging ON-SCREEN Probert's intention, and why that isn't enough to cause folks to give up on this constitution in features business, I will never EVER understand.

Then why did McCoy say, "Admiral, wouldn't it be easier to put an experienced crew back on the ship?" That plus the sign indicated that this group of cadets was assigned to the Enterprise.

You're inferring quite a lot, and maybe focusing on the wrong aspects. That dialog is there principally to drive the development of the Kirk character so the audience understands his ambivalence about his current position (and lets Shatner get back into kirkisaprick mode, which he mastered in TMP.)

If the Enterprise has been designated a training vessel, McCoy's comment is completely nonsensical, and yet Spock is clearly saying later that he is content to command the ship on a training mission ... if it were not a training mission, the cadets wouldn't be there, and presumably neither would Spock.

The sign tells folks where the simulator is for this class of ship. If you want to believe that they put the sign up so people don't walk in there to take a test for, say, the HOOD (if it is a starship class or con class), fine, but I don't see that anything sensible supports that view.

Here is what I don't get based on McCoy's line is that the Enterprise is not a "training vessel" but is getting a new crew that is made up of many from the Academy. Thus the simulator room was designed to resemble the Enterprise and Saavik refered to the Vessel as the Enterprise. This was my impression when I first saw the movie when I was 11 or 12. Then I heard about the Sign and felt it verified my thinking. This was a group of Cadets being trained to serve aboard the Enterprise, hence "Enterprise class."

But I can sorta see it the other way but based on the fact that all the cadets arrived on the Enterprise and McCoy's statement about an experienced crew back on the ship doesn't make sense for the Enterprise to be a training vessel. If it was just a training vessel then why put an experienced crew back on board?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The Federation President is the leader of the EXECUTIVE branch of the Federation, the Command and Chief of Starfleet

Unlike real-world situations, such as in the USA, the Federation President is not the Commander in Chief of Starfleet. We saw the latter in two different films, ST III (Admiral Morrow) and ST VI (Admiral 'Bill'). Both times, the characters were specifically identified as the C-in-C of Starfleet, and were clearly not the President of the Federation.

NOT the guy in charge of directing the Federation Council (the LEGISLATIVE branch) when they are in session.

Apparently you are forgetting ST IV, when we saw the President do exactly that.

 

[captcalhoun]

y'know, i wonder if the TOS configuration Defiant is labelled "Constitution class" in IaMD I on the displays. anyone got the DVDs and an HD telly to look? screencaps on Trekcore are no use...

 

[Timo]

Unlike real-world situations, such as in the USA, the Federation President is not the Commander in Chief of Starfleet. We saw the latter in two different films, ST III (Admiral Morrow) and ST VI (Admiral 'Bill'). Both times, the characters were specifically identified as the C-in-C of Starfleet, and were clearly not the President of the Federation.

Actually, this is not quite the case. Morrow was identified as "Commander, Starfleet", while Bill was not "Commander-in-Chief" but merely "the CinC". This title is expanded in some contexts as Commander-in-Charge and denotes a theater commander, a subordinate to the national Commander-in-Chief. Fans of Tom Clancy should recognize CinCLant, for example - the theater commander for Atlantic operations. As Wikipedia tells us, "CinC" was replaced in the USN by simple "Commander" in 2002, presumably exactly to avoid conflict with the title of the President of the United States.

(In turn, in the Royal Navy, "Commander-in-Chief" remains the title for an underling to a higher military leader, the Lord High Admiral who may or may not be the King or the Queen in charge of the country at the time. If he or she isn't, the Sovereign then trumps him or her, so the Commanders-in-Chief become the third rung from the top on the rank ladder.)

Admiral Bill (who's given the surname Smillie in the novels) could have been CinC to a particular theater, say, that involving Klingon ops. Or he could have been CinC of Starfleet in the same sense there's a CinC of Royal Navy Operations while President Ra'Ghoratrei was CinC of Federation defense forces and thus effectively CinC of Starfleet as well. And Morrow's title could simply have been abbreviated a bit differently from Smillie's - or it could have referred to a completely different position. As usual, all sorts of interpretations are possible given the evidence.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[captcalhoun]

As Wikipedia tells us, "CinC" was replaced in the USN by simple "Commander" in 2002, presumably exactly to avoid conflict with the title of the President of the United States.

yes, that was done at the behest of Dubya. he wanted to be the CinC and so all the CinCs were renamed Commander. so, no more CINCLANTFLT, CINCPACFLT, CINCCENTCOM, CINCNORAD etc...