All 50 state governors and the governor of Puerto Rico are opposing a White House effort to wrest control of the National Guard in times of crisis from the states. The move comes almost exactly a year after the White House and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco squared off on this very issue in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when New Orleans was flooded by failed levies.
The House of Representatives included in its version of the 2007 defense authorization bill a provision that would give the president control over Guard troops during “a serious natural or man-made disaster, accident, or catastrophe that occurs in the United States, its territories and possessions, or Puerto Rico.”
This could be done without the governor’s consent, according to the legislation.
Did you ever imagine a government that would do this — would be run by people calling themselves Republicans?
I think 50 state executive a-holes beat 1 federal executive a-hole if they stick together. I don’t think any of these large ego executives want ANY of there power taken away.
“Did you ever imagine a government that would do this — would be run by people calling themselves Republicans?”
Absolutely. If you had to ask that question, I want to know where have you been for the last 5 years?
Oh, what the hell…
I’m emailing GWB and suggesting he just go down to the national archives, take the Constitution out of its case, and just rip the sumbitch up.
Outside of Lou Dobbs [who gives copies away], has anyone from the world of Snewze looked to see if the Constitution is still there?
If Louisiana Governor’s Kathleen Blanco’s leadership during Hurricane Katrina wasn’t totally inept, I don’t think this would have been an issue.
My understanding is that all the pres needs to do is nationalize (ie call to federal service) a states guard forces to have control over them.
Does this new law do this faster? LBJ federalized the alabama (or miss? I forget) when Wallace tried to use the NG to stop federal marshals from integrating UAB. All he had to do was make a phone call.
BrainP
Except not inside the US border.
When they are under the “Army” “Authority” They can not act within the US border Otherwise the wouldn’t need a new bill would they?
Under times of war, the Pentagon (and the President if de decrees), can and call up the National Guard.
rwilliams254
But not within the U.S. border!
#2 #
“Did you ever imagine a government that would do this — would be run by people calling themselves Republicans?”
Absolutely. If you had to ask that question, I want to know where have you been for the last 5 years?
Comment by prophet — 8/15/2006 @ 6:43 am
In a word. “Yes”
The last 5 years? I’ve been around for forty, and I’ve never known a different Republican party.
OhForTheLoveOf:…. or a democratic party!
J, So if a war (declared) broke out on US soil (or territory – say at an embassy somewhere), the Pentagon or President (doesn’t have to submit to congress to send troops…see the constitution for reference) couldn’t call up the National Guard?
The whole Republican “states rights” thing is just said before cutting needed social programs. It helps them not look like total monsters by not giving children the needed health care or helping people in natural disasters.
From “The Myth of Posse Comitatus”
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm
The erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act through Congressional legislation and executive policy has left a hollow shell in place of a law that formerly was a real limitation on the military’s role in civilian law enforcement and security issues. The plethora of constitutional and statutory exceptions to the act provides the executive branch with a menu of options under which it can justify the use of military forces to combat domestic terrorism. Whether an act of terrorism is classified as a civil disturbance under 10 U.S.C., 331–334, or whether the president relies upon constitutional power to preserve federal functions, it is difficult to think of a domestic terrorism scenario of sizable scale under which the use of the military could not be lawfully justified in view of the act’s erosion. The act is no longer a realistic bar to direct military involvement in counterterrorism planning and operations. It is a low legal hurdle that can be easily cleared through invocation of the appropriate legal justification, either before or after the fact.
Who cares? The constitution’s just a goddamned piece of paper.
rwilliams254
Did you read the article?
Fighting a war on our soil and Police Actions on our soil are very very different things!
As Tom Lehrer put it (in a slightly different context):
“To the shores of Tripoli, but not to Mississipoli…”
http://tinyurl.com/kh4o2
Ok, issues aside… if a democratic president were to do it (or want to do it), would you have the same objections?
(FYI: President Clinton sent a JFT to Texas to help with border patrol. I know…I was there. USMC 1994-2002. Was that ok to do?)
There are no longer any Republicans or Democrats, just Globalist and Nationalist. Anything else is just a label which is meant to mislead the voters.
traaxx
rwilliams254
“Ok, issues aside… if a democratic president were to do it (or want to do it), would you have the same objections?”
YOUR DAM RIGHT I WOULD !!!!!!!
What I’m wondering is what kind of action does Bush have in mind for the Guard that he isn’t already using them for? What kind of action does someone as disdainful of the law as he is would need extra ass-protection?
Re #18 – I would object as well.
Smartalix
Good question! Perhaps one that all of us should be asking.
#18 – Hey did Clinton send the National Guard to Iraq, under false pretenses, for two year tours?
What I’m wondering is what kind of action does Bush have in mind for the Guard that he isn’t already using them for?
Martial law to quell civil insurrection. You’ll know we’re getting close when you read (probably on page 12) about someone being charged with “sedition”.
Hehe. Just kidding.
Heheheh. Just kidding about just kidding.
I agree, when you start hearing the word “sedition” in the Sunday morning talking point shows you will know that crap is about to hit the fan.
#26
A little revolution every now and then is a good thing.
I don’t recall who said that, but I think its probably true.
OhForTheLoveOf: Franklin. I believe it was every 20 years or so. …or something like that.
Yep, the Prez is C-in-C of the Guard when it is called into Federal service. However, Federal authority can only be used to quell domestic disorder within a state if it is requested by the State govt:
Art 4, Sec. 4: The United States shall guarantee to every state … on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence
My understanding of the situation is that the President can use the National Guard in policing situations onlyy after the President declares martial law or a threat to the nation is very severe. The state’s governors can use the National Guard for policing actions whithin their particular state when there is a need.
So, may be this President wants himself and furture Presidents to have the capability to call up the National Guard for policing duties without declaring martial law. Plus be able to over step the governor’s authority over the National Guard.
It is a good thing the American citizens only elect honest, loyal and humble people for President. Just think what might happen if a power hungry person was given that much power.
for the good of humanity the last thing Bush needs is a personal army he can use against the ppl whenever he feels like it. Hitler had his SA and his SS and was granted powers to use in “times of crisis”. We all know how that ended.
Who defines what a “time of crisis” is?