PA Gov sues Pentagon, invoking 2nd amendment

[RevDisk]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pennsylvania's governor and two U.S. senators sued the Pentagon on Monday to prevent deactivation of a Pennsylvania Air National Guard unit in a bid to save a military base from closure.

In what is being viewed as the first lawsuit of its kind, Gov. Ed Rendell, joined by Pennsylvania's Republican Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, is invoking the "militia clause" of the U.S. Constitution to prevent de-activation of the national guard's 111th Fighter Wing at the Willow Grove Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base.

The base near Philadelphia is among 837 facilities the Defense Department has earmarked for closure or cutbacks in the first round of domestic base reductions in a decade.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, names Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a defendant. It claims that federal law prohibits the changing, relocation or withdrawal of a National Guard unit without the approval of the governor of the state in which the unit is located.

The closure of the Willow Grove base would cost 1,232 direct jobs, including more than 1,000 associated with the 111th, which operates A-10 ground attack aircraft and has been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years.

Rendell told the Base Realignment and Closure Commission last week that he would not consent to the deactivation of the fighter wing.

In a statement, he said the 111th must be kept "available, to me as governor, to perform state active duty missions dealing with homeland security, natural disasters and other state missions."

Although Pennsylvania may not need the tank-bombing capabilities of its 15 A-10 "Warthogs," Rendell said the fighter wing has valuable medical, communications and intelligence personnel, trucks, buses and other equipment that could be put to use in a local emergency.

A National Guard spokesman declined to comment directly on the lawsuit, saying it was an issue that "would have to be sorted out by the lawyers."


------------------

Nifty! Hey feds! You can try to pry our A-10's out of our cold dead hands!

Edit : The Warthog. The ultimate protection in homeland security, natural disasters and other state missions!

 

[beerslurpy]

The 2nd amendment recognizes the right of individuals to bear arms, because gun owners make better soldiers, which makes the militia better.

The 2nd doesnt create an entitlment of money to be paid from the federal government to the states for supporting a standing army. Not does it guarantee the funding of any state militia. It only ensures that the body of people from which it is drawn are already proficient in small arms.

Is this a sneaky attack on the individual rights view of the 2nd, or is it an attempt to get the collective interpretation thrown out by the scotus? What are the political leanings of the people filing this suit? Anyone from PA know?

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

The article, as quoted, says that they're invoking the "militia clause of the U.S. Constitution" -- but does that mean specifically the Second Amendment?

Beware this one, folks. If this gets done on Second Amendment grounds, it will be used as further ammunition for the bogus claim that the 2A exists to protect the states' "rights"...

-Jeffrey

 

[beerslurpy]

But if it gets tossed out by the SCOTUS, that is a huge win for us.

 

[Coronach]

Rendell is a gun-grabbing leftist.

I strongly suspect that this has nothing to do with RKBA, at least at an individual level. He (along with Specter and Santorum) is making whatever play he thinks he can to show the voters that he is really, really trying to keep Fed money in Pennsylvania.

FWIW, I probably agree with his basic position (that standing down the ANG unit at Willow Grove is stupid), but I find the logic of his argument somewhat flawed.

Mike

 

[RevDisk]

The 2nd amendment recognizes the right of individuals to bear arms, because gun owners make better soldiers, which makes the militia better.

Yes, the 2A is an individual right. But it can also apply to states.

The 2nd doesnt create an entitlment of money to be paid from the federal government to the states for supporting a standing army. Not does it guarantee the funding of any state militia. It only ensures that the body of people from which it is drawn are already proficient in small arms.

It's not a matter of funding, per se. The Pentagon wants to shut down one of our units, 111th Fighter Wing. We don't want to shut down our unit, as PA owns said unit. Not the Pentagon. NG troops can be federalized, sure. But the Pentagon telling states to disband certain NG units? Nope. They can yank federal funding, sure. (If Congress approves.)

Is this a sneaky attack on the individual rights view of the 2nd, or is it an attempt to get the collective interpretation thrown out by the scotus? What are the political leanings of the people filing this suit? Anyone from PA know?

No, it is not a sneaky attack on individual rights view of the 2nd. It's certain PA politicians and military personnel not wanting to de-activate one of our units. There's a certain amount of politics involved, of course. The PA Guard used to be the largest National Guard division in the country, probably still is. We have pretty much every weapon in the inventory, except for the really biggies. (Stealth bombers, nukes, cruise missiles, that kind of thing.) We have the most highly deployed unit in the entire military, 193nd Spec Ops Wing in Harrisburg.

In short, we like our toys and don't like people trying to swipe 'em from us.


Political leanings? You're going to love this one. Rendell is very Democrat, Specter and Santorum are very Republican. If it makes you feel any better, Specter helped lead the fight to impeach Clinton, and wanted to impeach him a second time over Clinton's pardons.

 

[RevDisk]

I strongly suspect that this has nothing to do with RKBA, at least at an individual level. He (along with Specter and Santorum) is making whatever play he thinks he can to show the voters that he is really, really trying to keep Fed money in Pennsylvania.

FWIW, I probably agree with his basic position (that standing down the ANG unit at Willow Grove is stupid), but I find the logic of his argument somewhat flawed.

If it's a pork project, they picked a rather unusual one. Have you been out to the 111th? Besides, hardcore Republicans siding with a rabid Leftist like Rendell against the Pentagon strains the brain a bit.

Aside from a few service contracts, there's not much pork to be had with the 111th. Unless they are federalized, PA pays the salaries of the military personnel. There's no A10 Warthog plant in PA, and even if there was, we're not planning on buying any new ones. Just servicing the current batch. I'm sure a few components could be manufactured in PA, but surely not that many.

As far as I know, PA pays for the fuel, spare parts, and practice ammo also. The Pentagon gives us grants dependent on manpower (ie, number of bodies), and occassionally extra special toys. I don't think the personnel at the 111th (I won't give exact numbers for obvious reasons.) would make that big of a dent in our manpower. PA has a Striker battalion, for instance. Congress was nice enough to give us the funding for a new electronic warfare bird not too long ago.

This isn't given to us out of the good of their heart. They want us to spend our money learning how to use the weapons and vehicles, so they can deploy us whenever they want. We're viewed often as "cheap temporary help". If the feds don't pony up funds to replace kit we burn out overseas, why should we go? If PA paid good money for our A10's, the training of the pilots, the expenses of maintaining the aircraft, why should we give them up without a fight?


I don't think Rendell has the testicular fortitude to flip off the Pentagon and yank our soldiers back home, but it's not outside being a possible reality. A very unlikely one, but possible.

 

[Texian Pistolero]

Apparently, the guv saw "War of the Worlds".

He really MIGHT need those A 10's for state defense, but only if he can prove to the Supreme Court that he has a way to get the shields down on the Tripods.

 

[publius]

Yank the PA Guard from Iraq?

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Are they executing the laws of the union, suppressing insurrection, or repelling invasion over in Iraq?

Whichever it is, I'm sure they're employed in the service of the United States, so it seems to me that Governor Rendell can't govern them right now.

 

[RevDisk]

Whichever it is, I'm sure they're employed in the service of the United States, so it seems to me that Governor Rendell can't govern them right now.

We remember our oath, who signs our promotions/medals, and we also have a reminder on our shoulder in case we ever forget where we come from.

Besides, we don't have to yank the current soldiers back. Just stop sending any more. Same difference.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The 2nd amendment recognizes the right of individuals to bear arms, because gun owners make better soldiers, which makes the militia better.

The 2nd doesnt create an entitlment of money to be paid from the federal government to the states for supporting a standing army. Nor does it guarantee the funding of any state militia. It only ensures that the body of people from which it is drawn are already proficient in small arms.

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Specter and Santorum are very Republican.

Spector is the most leftist Republican in the Senate.

By the way, the National Guard is not the Militia. They receive a pay check from the government. The militia consists of every able bodied man who stands ready with his own weapons and ammo to come to the defense of his community, state or nation. They are not a paid standing army. The well regulated militia is that part of the militia which regularly musters for group practice, and which maintains a system of rank and discipline. The well regulated part cannot happen without the general militia (you and I) being free to keep and bear arms, which is the function of the Second Amendment, i.e., to ensure that there are enough well practiced and equipped individuals to form, as needed, a well regulated militia, which is necessary, when called upon, for the preservation of a free state.

 

[Lennyjoe]

Long live the A-10

 

[cropcirclewalker]

If it makes you feel any better, Specter helped lead the fight to impeach Clinton, and wanted to impeach him a second time over Clinton's pardons.

That was a hoot. I can still remember the dork referring to "Scottish Law" and claiming that der Schlickmeister was neither guilty or innocent, but "Not Proven".

What a jerk. His vote got counted as "not voting".

Magic Bullet?

Anita Hill hearings?

I don't know about the 111th, but Specter is one who should be deactivated.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Interesting.

While the national guard (aka the organized militia) is indeed a creature of the state, rather than the feds, I suspect the state of PA did not pay for a fleet of A-10s (which I see flying overhead every so often....VERY COOL!), nor am I interested in a tax hike to pay for their care & feeding, nor am I comfortable with ED RENDELL having such a fleet at his command.

That being said, I'd still like them mothballed against some future need.

 

[dolanp]

The militia clause they are referring to is not the 2nd amendment but Article I, Section 8:

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If PA wants to keep its base, it can bankroll it with its own budget.

 

[rhubarb]

I agree with beerslurpy.

I don't see the courts legislating that the Feddel Gummint must maintain military installations in individual states, therefore the argument that removing said base is a violation of the Second Amendment won't fly. Not that the courts are against enacting legislation from the bench nor do they respect the Constitution. The simple fact is that they will not require the Feds to do this for mainly financial reasons.

The courts will rule that the Second doesn't guarantee Feddel subsidies for the militia. They will rule that the militia is limited to "the People" and not a function of the Feddel Gummint. The militia will be put back in the hands of We the People. Then We can buy our own A-10 Warthogs.

I wisht. Seems a possible scenario, though.

 

[another okie]

dolanp is right. This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and everything to do with the relative powers of Congress and the states over the National Guard. The states foolishly gave up most of their power over the organized militias about 100 years ago, and now that the Guard units are all in Iraq and recruiting for the Guards is down, they're starting to realize they made a mistake. Some states (I think about 14) have a separate entity called the State Guard, which does not function much unless the National Guard is mobilized and out of the country. Oklahoma does not have one; seems as if Tennessee and New York are two of the states that do. Do a google search on "state guards" and you'll find them. There is a state guard association.

 

[Jeff White]

RevDisk,

The Guard is almost totally funded by the federal government. In most cases the state or territory provides the infrastructure (buildings, local training areas etc.), electricity, telephones, etc. The federal government provides the equipment and the money to pay the guardsmen.

If the governor uses the soldiers and equipment for a state active duty mission, the state picks up the payroll, and it may not be the same amount of money that the troops are paid on active duty, and must reimburse the feds for the wear and tear on the equipment, plus pay for fuel etc. This is why the president declaring a disaster is so important and why the call up of large numbers of guardsmen usually doesn't happen until after there has been a federal disaster declared. Once the area is declared a federal disaster area that triggers reimbursment from FEMA to the state for the cost of calling up the guard.

You will find in your state headquarters an office called the United States Property and Fiscal Office or USPFO. There is an officer, usually a Colonel (O-6) who is the US Property and Fiscal Officer. He is responsible to see that all of the guidelines and regulations concerning the use of federal funds and property are followed.

The issue here is one of if the governor is actually the commander in chief of the National Guard Forces in his state. What he's going to find is that he's commander in chief in name only. The governor actually only commands those forces that are totally financed by the state. I don't know if your state has a state milita. Many states do.

This issue was already decided in 1991 when the governor of a Northeastern state sued to try to prevent the mobilization of his national guard units for Gulf War 1. He lost....

The national guard is not a state milita. It is a federal force that is available to the state in case of emergency.

Jeff

 

[Jay Kominek]

I don't recall where I read it, but I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS said (years ago) that the states don't have a right to their own military forces, basically striking down the collectivist interpretation. (Though not specifically upholding the individualist.) The states have their state guards with the permission of the Federal Congress, and it has come and gone in the past.

 

[MikeIsaj]

Is this a sneaky attack on the individual rights view of the 2nd, or is it an attempt to get the collective interpretation thrown out by the scotus? What are the political leanings of the people filing this suit? Anyone from PA know?

This has NOTHING to do with the 2d amendment. It's about preserving a minor contribution to the local economy. Mostly it's about pandering to his base of liberal voters that put him in the statehouse and will renew his lease next year if he keeps them bamboozled.

Mind you, I think consolidating reserve and active forces into a few mega-bases is stupid. It is so inherently stupid that it boggles my mind to see so many people missing the point. It is disrespectful to the reservists who have sacrificed much recently and now will be required to travel much farther to their reserve units if they want to continue their career. It also ignores the lessons learned in Pearl Harbor, Beirut Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, to name a few.

Maintain interval and dispersion. What Marine private doesn't understand that?

 

[Coronach]

RevDisk:

You forgot one thing:

The reservists, their family members and their friends all vote. Rendell is not exactly popular outside of the Philly area. He has found a way to run his mouth like he cares, get lots of headlines, and not suffer a wit if he loses. To boot, it will cost him basically no money. In the book of any politican, left, right or center, that's a win-win proposition.

Mike

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I wonder if there's more to this than has been reported.

There is a similar situation in Connecticut, according to what I read about the old home state. Connecticut has an A-10 ANG unit stationed at Bradley "International" (cough, gag) Airport. The base closure commission wants to close the facility. However, they don't plan to just pull the plug on the operation. The plan is move the aircraft, the support positions, and the entire TOE toa base up the road in Massachusetts and to combine it with a similar unit already in Massachusetts, to create a more "optimally sized" unit.

I don't know if this is what's happening in PA, but in the CT case the Feds actually do plan to take away the toys and give them to another state.

 

[alan]

Re Governbor Rendell siting The Second amendment in the suit mentioned, given his record, that is about the biggest laugh I can remember having. Who told him about it, or where did he come upon it, The Second Amendment, that is.

By the way, The Pennsylvania Constitution has something to say on the subject also, however again, looking at Rendell's past performances, I would not of thought that he was either aware of this factor or was much impressed by it. I could, of course, be wrong.

 

[RevDisk]

I wonder if there's more to this than has been reported.

Has to be. It's not over a base, it's over a specific unit.

Pork? Yea, some. But it can't be that much compared to other juicier pork.

PR value? Maybe. But why a lawsuit? With Spector and Santorum as co-defendents? That's plain odd.

A clever way to gut the second amendment? Maybe. I checked the NRA's site, they ranked Spector as A. Couldn't find anything about Santorum on the NRA site, so I checked the anti-gun sites. Rated "poorly" by gun grabbers Good enough for me.

They could have cut some kind of a private deal with the Pentagon or could have done some horse trading behind closed doors. Instead, they picked a rather public and unusual manner of announcing their displeasure of planned disbanding the 111th.

Am I the only one that thinks this is kinda odd?