Governors bristle at Bush guard proposal

[lumpy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_on_re_us/governors_guard

States rights ?

[Kagemusha]

1. The civil rights act's valid so I'm sure this would be too

Just have to have Congress ram it through against state opposition.

[w4rma]

17. I think this might run up against the 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[davepc]

27. Perpich v. Department of Defense (SCOUS case, 1990)

http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_perpich_v_department_of_defense.htm

When Regan wanted to send Minnesota National Guard troops to South America in the late 1980's, the governor of Minnesota, Rudy Perpich fought against Regan having the authority to send his "state militia" out of his jurisdiction.

Perpich lost.

The court ruled that the National Guard is a part of the Federal Army.

During World War I, the President exercised the power to draft members of the National Guard into the Regular Army. That power, as well as the power to compel civilians to render military service, was upheld in the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918). 16 Specifically, in those cases, and in Cox v. Wood, 247 U.S. 3 (1918), the Court held that the plenary power to raise armies was "not qualified or restricted by the provisions of the militia clause." 17 <496 U.S. 334, 345>

The draft of the individual members of the National Guard into the Army during World War I virtually destroyed the Guard as an effective organization. The draft terminated the members' status as militiamen, and the statute did not provide for a restoration of their prewar status as members of the Guard when they were mustered out of the Army. This problem was ultimately remedied by the 1933 amendments to the 1916 Act. Those amendments created the "two overlapping but distinct organizations" described by the District Court - the National Guard of the various States and the National Guard of the United States.

Since 1933 all persons who have enlisted in a State National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. In the latter capacity they became a part of the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the Army, but unless and until ordered to active duty in the Army, they retained their status as members of a separate State Guard unit. Under the 1933 Act, they could be ordered into active service whenever Congress declared a national emergency and authorized the use of troops in excess of those in the Regular Army. The statute plainly described the effect of such an order:

"All persons so ordered into the active military service of the United States shall from the date of such order stand relieved from duty in the National Guard of their respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia so long as they shall remain in the active military service of the United States, and during such time shall be subject <496 U.S. 334, 346> to such laws and regulations for the government of the Army of the United States as may be applicable to members of the Army whose permanent retention in active military service is not contemplated by law. The organization of said units existing at the date of the order into active Federal service shall be maintained intact insofar as practicable." 18, 48 Stat. 160-161.

"Upon being relieved from active duty in the military service of the United States all individuals and units shall thereupon revert to their National Guard status." Id., at 161.

The states are free to establish state militias outside of the Federal military hierarchy, but such organizations are limited in these United States. Texas is one of the few states that has such an organization. http://www.agd.state.tx.us/stateguard/

[Sherman A1]

2. Interesting?

Didn't JFK Federalize the Alabama National Guard when dealing with Gov Wallace? How did he do that if the Gov wouldn't have agreed?

[Kagemusha]

4. Oh yeah!! I remember. Bush could've federalized the Guard for Katrina

but he wouldn't do it unilaterally, he wanted to force Blanco to offer the Guard to him instead rather than just take it from her by signing the right paperwork and declaring the right emergency.

So I don't know what this legislation is for except to somehow try and make the process more acceptable and normal seeming.

[dipsydoodle]

3. At the risk of sounding naive

"let the president take control in case of "a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe" OR when he just plain felt like it ?

[colorado_ufo]

24. Well, who is the Decider?

Who gets to Decide when a natural emergency is serious? Or Decide when it is necessary for a manmade one?

[Rex]

5. Bush takes and takes and takes.

Just like all other tinhorn dictators, he grabs all the military power. He can control the country with the M$M and the entire military structure. Little Kim must be jealous by now.

[lumpy]

12. States have to hold on to rights they

have remaining, just another assault against the Constitution. The more Presidental power the less in the hands of the people.

[Acadia Blue]

26. He is the taker not the decider. Just like all his buddies, just a high

class horse thief who will steal anything he can.

[eleny]

6. At one time this would have been a tinfoil hat issue

Not anymore.

[TomInTib]

9. Exactly. The "disaster" bit was a smokescreen. This is about..

martial law.

[eleny]

13. Absodamnlootetly

[TomInTib]

14. 'Absodamnlootetly'

SoDamnWellPut

ly

[eleny]

18. I guaragoddamntee it!

:rofl:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

15. Is Bush anticipating a revolution?

why would he want central federal control over the internal military forces that quell riots, such as the Guard did on a local level did during Vietnam?

[Say_What]

7. Just moving closer to the dictatorship we should know is coming...

unless AmeriKan Sheeple wake up. :nuke:

[pinto]

8. Any time I hear "without consent" and "Bush" my blood boils.

I hope the Governors stand firm here. While this Administration attempts to dismantle the Federal structure under the smoke screen of austerity/defense spending constraints, they routinely abrogate State resources which they don't have to finance, claiming the same justification. Someone pays, and it's the States. Which largely means the middle class taxpayer.

[Vidar]

10. Before it's too late, I hope a few governors mobilize their guard &

march on the tyrant.

[Lindacooks]

11. Just another part of the Supreme Diktator's plan...

to grab all power and overthrow the Constitution.

[54anickel]

16. Chipping away at those states rights a little at a time. They threatened

to sue Maine for crying out loud!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2436370#top

[flyarm]

19. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm

In a nutshell, this act bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying in October before the Senate Armed Services Committee, agreed that it might be desirable to give federal troops more of a role in domestic policing to prevent terrorism. "In certain cases we can do more than anyone else in the country because of the special capabilities that we have,'' he said.

Dennis Corrigan, a retired colonel who taught the law at the Army's Judge Advocate General's school, says legislators should resist the urge to change it. The military isn't trained to be a police force, he says, so it should stick to the skills for which it is trained: surveillance, information gathering, logistical support. All of these activities are allowable under Posse Comitatus. "I'm not sure, even with what's going on today, that Congress wants the military arresting people.''

But Michael Spak, former Army JAG colonel now teaching at Chicago-Kent College of Law had another spin. "It's good for the law to tell the truth and for everybody to follow the law,'' he said. "But is it necessary? No.''



****WE MUST NEVER ALLOW THIS IN THE USA..WE MUST TAKE TO THE STREETS TO STOP THIS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!
FLY

[colorado_ufo]

23. Excellent and defining post.

What a Pandora's box this would be! And then just try to close the lid.

[lumpy]

20. If I recall rightly, this issue came up during

the Vietnam conflict. Not for the same reasons however. There is no doubt in my mind that Bushco wants all the eggs in their basket. Power. Control.

[converted_democrat]

21. This has bad news written all over it.. n/t

[tanyev]

22. States' rights is SO 1992-2000. Where have you been?

[MilesColtrane]

25. The GOPstapo is looking at Mexico and getting nervous.

What happens when an obviously stolen November election fails to turn the House back over to Democratic control, and inspired voters start to march on Washington?

Bush wants his own Praetorian Guard.

[Poll_Blind]

28. Too late to Recommend but not too late to KICK! n/t

PB