Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: States' rights rebellion over National Guard
The Lizard King    1/27/2010 12:12:32 PM
Lawmakers fight to keep governors, not president, in control of troops -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: January 26, 2010 9:17 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WorldNetDaily Responding to an executive order by President Obama, a new push is under way for states to adopt laws limiting the use of their National Guard units unless there is an invasion, insurrection or other limited circumstance. As WND reported, Obama's order establishes a new "Council of Governors" designated to advise on the "synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States." The recent order, posted on the White House website, was accompanied by the explanation that the group is to work "to protect our nation against all types of hazards." It comes just weeks after the president issued a similarly obscure order vastly expanding INTERPOL's privileges in the U.S. The White House said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review "such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities." However, there was no definition of the group's authority. Can the council recommend "military activities" and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction? The White House did not respond to WND questions on the issue. (Story continues below) Now the Tenth Amendment Center is recommending a model legislation that states can use to limit the activities of their own National Guard members. Learn how to foil those who would damage the nation. Get "Taking America Back" now from the WND Superstore. The model legislation states: "The governor shall withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of the National Guard to federal control in the absence of: a) A military invasion of the United States, or b) An insurrection, or c) A calling forth of the guard by the federal government in a manner provided for by Congress to execute the laws of the union, provided that said laws were made in pursuance of the delegated powers in the Constitution of the United States, or d) A formal declaration of war from Congress." The organization said the requests to state legislatures already have begun with a letter on the issue dispatched by Walt Garlington, founder of the Louisiana State Sovereignty Committee, to state Rep. Brett F. Geymann. "I ask you to once again take up the cause of states' rights and protect Louisiana from this latest unconstitutional action coming from Washington, D.C.," the letter said. "Please introduce a bill reasserting the governor's power over Louisiana's National Guard to counteract the EO issued by Pres. Obama." The model legislation proposed by the Tenth Amendment Center says the law is, "For the purpose of requiring the governor to withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of this state's National Guard to federal control in the absence of an explicit authorization adopted by the federal government in pursuance of the powers delegated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution." It cites U.S. Constitution provisions that Congress has the power to provide for "calling forth the militia" to "execute the laws of the union," or to suppress insurrections or repel invasions. The proposal cites Daniel Webster's statement in 1814 to Congress, "It will be the solemn duty of the state governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the state governments exist." The White House said the new panel was called for in the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act and will include 10 governors picked by the president as well as the Coast Guard commandant and other officials from the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies. The White House announcement said the council "will provide an invaluable senior administration forum for exchanging views with state and local officials on strengthening our national resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our nation today and in the future." Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm poked fun at the announcement, writing Obama "has determined that, a) there is an insufficient number of advisory bodies among the gazillion already in existence for the federal government in general and said president and his White House specifically." Obama also, Malcolm said, "chooses to ignore the existe
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
PlatypusMaximus       1/27/2010 1:54:59 PM
Sworn to uphold another clause.
It's not that these people don't care about the 10th, 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th Amendments...and take the welfare and commerce clauses out of context.....It's that when your circle of friends is all liberals, you never simply end a conversation with "people aren't allowed to do that"
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       1/27/2010 3:04:45 PM
This is forgetting, of course, that the Federal government has nationalized (or essentially nationalized) the National Guard in every major conflict since the Spanish-American War.  I understand and sympathize with the desire to limit the federal government, but there are times when the needs of the nation outweigh those of the states.  The NG represents a huge portion of the US armed services now, and the President--who under the Constitution fights wars--shouldn't have to fight his way through a ream of red tape to get the NG into the fight.
 
If they're worried about the NG being used to take away guns or attack citizens, that fails on two things: 1) Posse Comitatus prevents it by federal law and 2) it's highly unlikely the NG is going to attack their own neighbors.  It's more likely that the regular Army would be used for that sort of thing--not brother vs. brother.  That has happened in US history, of course--the Civil War--but those were completely different circumstances.
 
The dustup over Interpol is a tempest in a teapot.  Interpol isn't going to come banging on your door and arrest you without due process--hell, their restrictions are more than the FBI's.  The point of the Interpol thing is to allow them to share intelligence and operate alongside the FBI, which will be a help in international crime.  I don't think we need to worry about Inspector Zenigata showing up and demanding you hand over your copy of the Constitution.  I'm more afraid of Holder deputizing the Black Panthers before I am Interpol--the latter are professional lawmen who understand the rules of law.  The former...well, the less said the better.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       1/27/2010 6:32:43 PM

This is forgetting, of course, that the Federal government has nationalized (or essentially nationalized) the National Guard in every major conflict since the Spanish-American War.  I understand and sympathize with the desire to limit the federal government, but there are times when the needs of the nation outweigh those of the states.  The NG represents a huge portion of the US armed services now, and the President--who under the Constitution fights wars--shouldn't have to fight his way through a ream of red tape to get the NG into the fight.

...and that's why under the above proposal the president would not have to fight his way through any red tape, as one of the following would apply during any time in which the needs of the nation outweigh those of the states:
"a) A military invasion of the United States, or b) An insurrection, or c) A calling forth of the guard by the federal government in a manner provided for by Congress to execute the laws of the union, provided that said laws were made in pursuance of the delegated powers in the Constitution of the United States, or d) A formal declaration of war from Congress."
 
I suggest that what the states ought to ought to consider (for the approximately one-half of the states that also have their own State Guards as well as their state's National Guard) is calculate whatever they think they are spending on the National Guard that they should not have to spend, put a dollar value on whatever else is going on with their National Guard that they don't think should be going on (like having their citizens unduly/excessively mobilized, or whatever), and then next year defund their support of their state National Guard to that same extent, and instead increase the budget of their state guard to that same extent.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       1/27/2010 6:37:39 PM



This is forgetting, of course, that the Federal government has nationalized (or essentially nationalized) the National Guard in every major conflict since the Spanish-American War.  I understand and sympathize with the desire to limit the federal government, but there are times when the needs of the nation outweigh those of the states.  The NG represents a huge portion of the US armed services now, and the President--who under the Constitution fights wars--shouldn't have to fight his way through a ream of red tape to get the NG into the fight.




...and that's why under the above proposal the president would not have to fight his way through any red tape, as one of the following would apply during any time in which the needs of the nation outweigh those of the states:

"a) A military invasion of the United States, or b) An insurrection, or c) A calling forth of the guard by the federal government in a manner provided for by Congress to execute the laws of the union, provided that said laws were made in pursuance of the delegated powers in the Constitution of the United States, or d) A formal declaration of war from Congress."

 

I suggest that what the states ought to ought to consider (for the approximately one-half of the states that also have their own State Guards as well as their state's National Guard) is calculate whatever they think they are spending on the National Guard that they should not have to spend, put a dollar value on whatever else is going on with their National Guard that they don't think should be going on (like having their citizens unduly/excessively mobilized, or whatever), and then next year defund their support of their state National Guard to that same extent, and instead increase the budget of their state guard to that same extent.

 

 



 
Whoops, forgot the rest:
 
For those states that no longer have an organized militia they can truly call their own, because they have not yet formed State Guards, I suggest they follow the method I thought up above, except instead of using the money to increase their State Guard budget (that doesn't yet exist), they should use that money to initiate a State Guard program.

 
 
Quote    Reply

PPR    Reagan vs Dukakis   1/27/2010 8:13:51 PM
May 29, 1988 |
Despite the objections of Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, 13 Massachusetts National Guard public affairs specialists left Saturday for two weeks of training in Panama and Honduras. Dukakis, front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, opposes the Reagan Administration's deployment of National Guard troops in Central America on constitutional grounds and has appealed a U.S. District Court ruling that upheld the assignment.
 
I'm afraid the courts have sided with the federal government on this.  Once federalized, the President is commander-in-chief.
 
Quote    Reply

PPR    Reagan vs Dukakis   1/27/2010 8:25:07 PM
May 29, 1988 |
Despite the objections of Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, 13 Massachusetts National Guard public affairs specialists left Saturday for two weeks of training in Panama and Honduras. Dukakis, front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, opposes the Reagan Administration's deployment of National Guard troops in Central America on constitutional grounds and has appealed a U.S. District Court ruling that upheld the assignment.
 
I'm afraid the courts have sided with the federal government on this.  Once federalized, the President is commander-in-chief.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       1/28/2010 1:14:01 AM
 
I'm afraid the courts have sided with the federal government on this.  Once federalized, the President is commander-in-chief.


I don't think anyone disputes this or even thinks this is not the way it should be.  The issue is over what constitutes proper authority and methodology for federalizing the NG in the first place.  The president was never meant to have, and should not have, the authority to mobilize the NG anytime he wants to for whatever reason he wants to for as long as he wants to.  Thankfully, he still does not have that authority, as far as I know, and laws govern the circumstances and methods used for calling up guardsmen and reservists.  For example, under the Presidential Partial Mobilization Order that went into effect after 9/11, reservists and guardsmen can only be mobilized for no more than 24months out of every 60months.  However, apparently there are many people who think there are examples of the current and past presidents exceeding that authority, I guess supposedly sometimes through executive orders that Congress have tacitly tolerated by not stepping in and reversing.  I admit I do not have sufficient expertise and knowledge to judge whether they are right or not.  I certainly do have sympathy for the idea that if presidential authority has been/is being exceeded, then the states definitely should act however they can to limit future abuse.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       1/28/2010 2:19:30 PM
That's a good question, but the President may indeed have that authority under the warfighting clauses of the Constitution.  Washington called out the militia during the Whiskey Rebellion, for instance, and Lincoln called on states to provide volunteers at the beginning of the Civil War (which admittedly was an isolated case).  If a President should say, "Okay, I'm federalizing the Guard," he should be able to do so--though I do agree that Congress needs to be declaring war more often.  The last time we declared war was on Germany in December 1941.  We have fought wars since then, as I recall...
 
I don't necessarily like the State Guard idea anyway as opposed to National Guards.  Then you're essentially funding two rival militaries, which history has proven to be an exceedingly bad idea.  In my own state's history, the governor called out a version of the "state guard" to chase Sitting Bull around.  All he accomplished was spending $1.2 million (in 1876, no less) and having a 2:1 ratio of officers to men as his political cronies got commands.  Their influence on the Great Sioux War was less than nothing.
 
Quote    Reply

Photon       2/27/2010 4:10:12 PM
Perhaps have the US subject to a huge reorganization?  Scrap the state governments.  Instead of governors, you have magistrates appointed by the federal government.  The federal court system absorbs some of its state counterpart while scrapping the remainder.  Do the same with the state legislatures.  All active and reserve military units are answerable to DoD but not answerable to local governments, unless DoD has delegated control to local governments.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/27/2010 7:57:40 PM

I'm more afraid of Holder deputizing the Black Panthers before I am Interpol--the latter are professional lawmen who understand the rules of law.  The former...well, the less said the better.

I think you mean ACORN, not the Black Panthers.

On second thought, maybe not.  He may have already deputized ACORN.

 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics