National Guard: President to bypass Governors' Consent

[Thin Black Line]

Wow.....anyone got the Hill bill number on this one?:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2278389

CHARLESTON, S.C. Aug 5, 2006 (AP)— The nation's governors are closing ranks in opposition to a proposal in Congress that would let the president take control of the National Guard in emergencies without consent of governors.

The idea, spurred by the destruction and chaos that followed Hurricane Katrina's landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi, is part of a House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act. It has not yet been agreed to by the Senate.

The measure would remove the currently required consent of governors for the federalization of the Guard, which is shared between the individual states and the federal government.

"Federalization just for the sake of federalization makes no sense," said Gov. Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, a Democrat who had rough relations with the Bush administration after the disaster last year. "You don't need federalization to get federal troops. … Just making quick decisions can make things happen."

Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a Republican, said "a whole bunch of governors" were opposed to the idea after the proposed change was brought up in a private lunch meeting.

I'd love to have tape of that meeting.

So what does this have to do with guns? Anyone recall the "shot heard
around the world" and a past attempt to control State Militias? I mean
that's all I heard during the Clinton years was that the National Guard was
the only legitimate "State Militia"

We certainly can NOT let a temporary Executive bypass our State governors
and control our State Militias. That would be UN-Consitutional!

 

[ArmedBear]

My alternative view:

Okay, lets stop pretending that the National Guard is the state militia. What a load of hooey. I think we'd be better off without that charade.

Just fold the National Guard in with the Reserves, and let's have State Guards that are the real thing. A few states already do.

 

[longeyes]

Yes, let's have "The Real Thing."

Let's just save time and put SCOTUS and Congress on hiatus and let our Imperial President run it all.

 

[Henry Bowman]

It's almost funny when the 98% percent don't want to be controlled based on the incompetence of 2%.

 

[Devonai]

I thought about all the things I wanted to say, but I don't want to be argumentative. I'll simply say that as a National Guardsman I don't want the president to be able to bypass my governor.

 

[Baba Louie]

Waaaay past time for our 50 United State's Governors to form actual well regulated State Militia's from volunteers, aged 18 - 45, male and female, who are NOT National Guard, but actual State Militia, each capable of bringing with them whatever is needed to protect their free states, be it arms, communications, medical, transport (ground and air), etc. in order to assist their state citizens and perhaps neighboring state citizens in times of dire need, to protect the borders, respond to natural emergencies, police assistance when needed... but who do NOT fall under Federal control except as private citizens.

I wonder if that could legally be done in todays United States of America? It used to work that way. I'm sure since they'd have to travel on Federally funded Interstates from time to time there would be issues making it illegal, or subject to Fed control... what with interstate commerce being affected and all...

 

[orangelo]

What does it say on the NG uniforms? US ARMY.
Who do they ultimately take orders from? The Commander-in-Chief.
Who provides equipment for the NG? The federal government.

I don't see any state militia here. Only another branch of the standing army.

 

[El Tejon]

Very true, the National Guard is part of the federal army. In no way are they considered any sort of "militia". Issue was decided (9-0) in a Supreme Court case entitled Perpich v. Department of Defense in 1990.

Lefty guvs in states such as Men-ah-sooo-tah (where Perpich was gov) wanted to aid and comfort Communists in Central America and prevent Ronnie Raygun from sending "their" National Guard troops down Souf. Supremes pointed out that Nasty Girls were feds, not any sort of a militia.

 

[HankB]

I'll simply say that as a National Guardsman I don't want the president to be able to bypass my governor.

That train left the station a long time ago.

IANAL, but here's my recollection of the landmark case which settled the issue . . . any lawyers reading this, feel free to jump in and correct any errors:

Back around 1990 or so, the Feds decided they were going to send elements of the Minnesota National Guard down to Central America someplace for training or roadbuilding or something.

Then-governor Rudy Perpich objected, and took the Feds to court. He asserted the MN National Guard was the MN State Militia, and not subject to Federal orders over the Governor's objection.

SCOTUS ruled that since the MN NG was equipped, trained, and financed by the Feds, the NG was NOT the state militia Perpich thought it was - ultimately, despite Gov. Perpich's best efforts, the MN NG went to Central America.

Think about this - if El Presidente Bush couldn't bypass governors, don't you think at least a few states would have tried to stop the assignment of their National Guard to duty in Iraq?

edited to add: Awww, heck . . . El T. typed faster than I did!

 

[v8fbird]

The state control of the national guard is the last defense against the federal government and against tyranny.

That, pure and simple, is the reason the Fuhrer wants to centralize it.

 

[Frog48]

Another example of a federal govt power-grab.

I voted for Bush twice, and I'm beginning to regret it. In the time since his reelection, he's strayed from alot of fundamental conservative principles.

 

[El Tejon]

v8, no, the NG is part of the federal army. It is already centralized.

The check against the federal government is the people.

 

[v8fbird]

El Tejon,


Says the article: "The measure would remove the currently required consent of governors for the federalization of the Guard, which is shared between the individual states and the federal government."


The President cannot federalize the national guard over the objection of the governors of the states. The only exception is to "maintain a republican form of government" or whatever it says in the Constitution.


Take, for example, the Alabama Supreme Court's ten commandment's display. SCOTUS ruled that they were unconstitutional. If the justices had refused to remove the display, federal marshals (i think) would have been dispatched to enforce the judgement. At that point, the governor of Alabama could have called out the national guard to intercept the marshals -- no matter what anyone in Washington said. In doing so, the governor could have said "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord," federalism be damed.

I'm no constitutional expert, but I think that's fairly accurate.

 

[ArmedBear]

Let me clarify.

I think the National Guard should be disbanded, and State militias should be formed. Real ones.

The National Guard as it now exists makes no sense. It's a sham to pretend it functions like a State militia is supposed to. And barring all-out war in the Western Hemisphere, there's no reason for a State militia to go to Central America or anywhere else, whether it's Reagan, Clinton, or Bush in office.

Right now the National Guard has three functions:

1. Emergency services agency -- replace that with civilian volunteer/reserve organization. I'd join, myself, and it would not only likely be less expensive, but it would also get a lot of us, who aren't in any military branch, more involved in community emergency services. We should be.

2. More troops for the Federal Government.

3. Repository for old military equipment.

4. Legal loophole that lets the Federal Government claim that there are State militias without having to actually have any. This has interesting effects on the 2nd Amendment, especially in anti-gun/anti-individual states.

#1 should be replaced with civilians and volunteers.

#2 should be folded in with the regular military or reserves. Let those who sign up really understand that they ARE signing up to go to places like Iraq when the Federal Government tells them to, not to defend their states and work during floods and hurricanes.

#3 is sort of silly. Either we really need old planes and trained pilots who can fly them, or we don't. It's pretty expensive to play around with this stuff.

#4 is the best reason to get rid of the NG altogether, and reestablish the original militia organizations in the US. Switzerland can also provide a model.

Again, the current NG is a charade. Let's stop playing this game.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Even when the NG (and Reserve) is called up for Federal duty there
are three levels that restrict the Executive/Hill as far as how many
may be called up and also, more importantly, for how long. We are
under a Partial Mobilization right now which limits the Executive to
1,000,000 men/women for 24 months. We have not exceeded the
number of people called up, but the time period has either expired or
been "reinterpreted" by the so-called powers that be. Under Full Mob,
there is unlimited numbers that can be called up and it is for the "length
of war plus 6 months." Only the Full Mob requires the Declaration of War
by Congress. Obviosuly, a draft could be re-instated as well if they so
choose. I doubt the original intent behind the Partial Mob rules for
the Executive was for the current administration's interpretation that
people could be called up for two years at a time, given a two year "break"
and called up for two years again --for the rest of their lives. This is
ridiculous as it also allows for a state of continuous warfare without the
need for the approval by Congress.

In any case, the bypassing of State National Guard Governors was clearly
not intended by the Founding Fathers nor was our continuous state of
warfare. I would refer you to the Federalist Papers and the writings
of Jefferson for a good start on their intent when it came to war and the
use of our citizens.

That the SCOTUS picks and chooses how it will interpret the Constitution
at a given time in history is nothing new --they once re-affirmed slavery
as well in their decisions, ie, they can be WRONG, biased, or just plain
bought off when it comes down to it. Likewise, while the Hill sits on its
collective thumbs as a Federal level Executive consolidates a new
Praetorian Guard is nothing new --one only has to look at Roman history
for such sad past examples.

I see the current move to bypass the state governors as part of the
consolidation of federal power that was against the intent of the
Founding Fathers.

 

[El Tejon]

v8, the Gov. of Minnesota objected to the use of the National Guard. President Reagan sent them anywho. The President is the ultimate authority as to the National Guard whether or not the Gov. of Men-ah-sooo-tah or Alabamee like it or not.

Indeed during the 1950s and 60s the National Guard, much to the objection of Orval, Lester, and Cledus, was used to enforce desegregation in the Souf. I will attempt to locate the Perpich decision on-line.

O.K., here are the Supremes: http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_perpich_v_department_of_defense.htm

 

[El Tejon]

TBL, the NG is part of the federal army, and has nothing to do with state forces or militias. A federal military existed (however tiny) at the time of the origins of the Constitution.

The Framers were very clear, as the Supreme Court described, that the President, not the states, control the federal army. The Federalist Papers are explicit on this matter (no surprise as it came from Hamilton). Indeed, Hamilton justified Presidential control as a standing army in charge of far off Washington would be checked by an armed people.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't know why it shocks me to see people discussing things when they clearly don't have the facts; but I am even more amazed when someone offers the facts and people continue to argue based on the earlier erroneous interpretation.

As others have pointed out (numerous times now), the National Guard is part of the Federal government and is NOT a state militia. In fact, one of the key points of Perpich v. United States is that states are entirely free to form their own militias separate of the National Guard. Several states have done so - to use one example, the Texas State Guard is one such militia.

In any case, the bypassing of State National Guard Governors was clearly not intended by the Founding Fathers nor was our continuous state of warfare.

The National Guard itself was clearly not intended by our Founding Fathers as evidenced by the fact that it didn't come into existence until nearly a hundred years later...

As for what the Founding Fathers intended, based on the Constitution it looks like they intended Congress has the power to call up the militia without the approval of the governors. It is an explicit enumerated power granted to Congress under the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Once they are called into duty, the President is their Commander-in-Chief:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Even when the NG (and Reserve) is called up for Federal duty there
are three levels that restrict the Executive/Hill as far as how many
may be called up and also, more importantly, for how long.

You are mixing up multiple concepts. The President is restricted in how long he can call troops into service. Traditionally this power resides with Congress; but they have authorized the President to call up troops on a limited basis in order to respond to immediate threats. Selective Mobilization and Partial Mobilization fall under this category. Congress has essentially given the President a blank check to call up as many as 1 million reserves for as long as 24 months.

The other categories are Full Mobilization and Total Mobilization. Under Full Mobilization (which can be enacted only by Congress to support a national emergency or declaration of war), all Reserves forces authorized under the current force structure may be called into service for the duration of the war/emergency + 6 months. A draft may also be authorized under Full Mobilization. Under Total Mobilization, only a Declaration of War is sufficient and it requires the approval of both Congress and the President. Under this, there are no constraints, the Reserves may be called up indefinitely and people up to the age of 60 may be drafted.

You will find these laws under 10 U.S.C. 1209 Sec. 12301-12304.

We are under a Partial Mobilization right now which limits the Executive to
1,000,000 men/women for 24 months. We have not exceeded the
number of people called up, but the time period has either expired or
been "reinterpreted" by the so-called powers that be.

Yes, Congress can do that (extend the time period or the numbers). The President by himself cannot.

Under Full Mob, there is unlimited numbers that can be called up and it is for the "length
of war plus 6 months." Only the Full Mob requires the Declaration of War
by Congress. Obviosuly, a draft could be re-instated as well if they so
choose.

No, under Full Mob, you may also be called up to serve during a National Emergency.

I doubt the original intent behind the Partial Mob rules for
the Executive was for the current administration's interpretation that
people could be called up for two years at a time, given a two year "break"
and called up for two years again --for the rest of their lives. This is
ridiculous as it also allows for a state of continuous warfare without the
need for the approval by Congress.

Congress wrote the law allowing the President such authority. It can write a law removing that authority if it feels it is being abused.

 

[Byron Quick]

Years ago, I joined the Army Reserve instead of my state's Guard. Why? The Reserve can be mobilized by the President. The National Guard can be mobilized by the President AND the governor. I figured I'd just go with one of them...unity of command.

I think those of you who don't want a NG need to look at the historical records of the Guard's accomplishments in WWI and WWII. Then consider the consequences of not having them available the next time... Then go back and review the checkered records of militia in this country. In the Revolution, some militia units evolved into the very best troops we had. Others units were a disgrace to the colors from start to finish. I am aware of no National Guard division that has performed better than the best of the militias. I am aware of no National Guard unit that has performed as poorly as the worst of the militia.

Judging from the results of the respective military organizations in battle, it might be prudent to keep the organization that handles combat the best.

Or, if you prefer, you can choose the military organization that fits your ideology better...as the commissars did.

 

[Thin Black Line]

I don't know why it shocks me to see people discussing things when they clearly don't have the facts; but I am even more amazed when someone offers the facts and people continue to argue based on the earlier erroneous interpretation.

And, it doesn't shock me that you in particular would misunderstand,
misconstrue, etc comments and opinions that you are simply opposed
to, not actually being more correct or enlightened about it.

Bart, are you a lawyer? Do you work for the FEDERAL Justice Department
or one of the other FEDERAL branches. You are always so quick to
defend all aspects of the FEDERAL gov't and the current, hopefully
temporary, administration.

While you're quoting the Consitution, look up the part about raising
an army and the money to fund it being limited to *two years*. Yeah,
"we" (through the Federal Gov't) have pretty much ignored that one for
most of the past century. Of course, if the Feds ignore it, it makes it
right and you'll agree with it because they must have a really good
reason for everything they do

No, under Full Mob, you may also be called up to serve during a National Emergency.

Not going to disagree with "emergency" or your use of sophistry there.

Bart, if we were back in 1776, I would be with the Founding Fathers and you
would be barfing some tripe about staying loyal to King George.

 

[hugh damright]

As for what the Founding Fathers intended, based on the Constitution it looks like they intended Congress has the power to call up the militia without the approval of the governors. It is an explicit enumerated power granted to Congress under the Constitution:

It looks to me like the intent was that the militias remain State Militias, specifically so that if the US calls them up, they may decide not to go. The US once called up Virginia Militia to march down South and threaten the seceding States, and Virginia said "no" and seceded too.

What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive apportionment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia. - Federalist Paper #29

 

[the naked prophet]

I think most people are missing the base problem here. We need to go back to the original method of choosing Senators. They need to be appointed by the State governments, to prevent the Feds from running roughshod over the States. This wouldn't even be an issue if the Senate were appointed by the State legislators.

 

[Baba Louie]

the naked prophet et al,
A little history behind the 17th from Wikipedia (first source found on google search...FWIW)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Jeff White]

Why are we arguing over settled law? All of these issues have been addressed either by congress or in the courts.

The governors are just trying to make their own foreign policy statements. There were provisions for the state militias to be called into federal service ever since the militia act of 1792.

Any governor who wants to spend the money can raise, equip and train his own state defense force. There are no federal laws against that. The governors want it both ways. They want to have a force available for use in the state in times of emergency, but they don't want to pay for it.

The idea that a governor should exercise total control over over a force that is paid for by the federal government is crazy. The states only provide armory buildings (and there are federal funds used in the construction of new ones), utilities to the buildings (although once again the federal government picks up the bulk of the telecommunications tab) and certain recruiting and retention things like scholarship money to state colleges and special license plates. Everything else, the equipment, the salaries, the training is paid for by the federal government.

The state only pays for anything when the units are used in a state active duty role. Then the state pays for the salaries, food, fuel and leases the equipment back from the feds.....However if a federal disaster is declared, then FEMA reimburses the state for the cost of using the guard.

You guys who are all for state control need to get to your state capitol and demand that your state legislature raise your state taxes to pay for the state defense force. It costs about 6 million dollars just to equip a light Infantry company. Of course you'll have to develop your own recruiting and training infrastructure. That will add considerably to the cost.

A billion or two should get you started. What the heck you guys can certainly afford 35% sales tax so your state can have it's very own Army and Air Force. Or maybe you could charge $6000 a year to register your cars, or your property tax could equal your mortgage payment each and every month. Of course those figures don't count in operating aircraft or armored vehicles....

The idea that in 2006 we can defend the country with an untrained rabble who will (maybe) deploy from their homes with the buttons popping open on their BDUs with their SKSs in hand has our potential enemies quaking in their boots. War is just a bit different then it was in the 1700s.....

Jeff

 

[v8fbird]

"The governors are just trying to make their own foreign policy statements."

That, or they're trying to keep Bush from making his foreign policy statements with tactical nuclear weapons...

You also seem to forget that the governors are not acting, they are REACTING to tyranny.

"Any governor who wants to spend the money can raise, equip and train his own state defense force. There are no federal laws against that."

"You guys who are all for state control need to get to your state capitol and demand that your state legislature raise your state taxes to pay for the state defense force."

Why do you think that after we pay income taxes, the federal government OWNS that money? Why do you think that any federal funds are a gift from above? What if a state would rather just stop paying federal taxes?

"The idea that a governor should exercise total control over over a force that is paid for by the federal government is crazy."

So you alternative is to give Bush ("the Constitution is just a God****** piece of paper") total control over an even bigger force. Well thought out.






"The idea that in 2006 we can defend the country with an untrained rabble who will (maybe) deploy from their homes with the buttons popping open on their BDUs with their SKSs in hand has our potential enemies quaking in their boots."

Yes, Jeff, we instead need a huge, centralized force of mercenaries under the control of one insane dictator. That way we can defend our country (from whom???) against the threat of invasion (from where???).

America has ALWAYS been many times more in danger of its own rulers than it has been from any outside "threat."

"War is just a bit different then it was in the 1700s....."

That's right. As you and your Republican buddies like to point out, we're fighting "terrorists who hate us because we're free" or something. But you've learned in Iraq (SUPRISE!) that you can't defeat them with tanks, and that huge armies can't find them. So if we don't have enemies we can fight with a large, standing force, why do you mandate that we have a HUGE, standing force?