From Proud Liberal "Sure this is coming from the House of Representatives, but no matter how you dress it up it's still another power grab by this power hungry administration. Do we really need to give the president the power to take control of the National Guard? The House seems to think so.
'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.'"
So you ask, why on earth am I reading a blog called the 'Proud Liberal'? Have I gone pinko commie?
No, the sad fact is that in this world turned upside down the liberals at times seem to be the only folks capable of seeing what is wrong. Now don't loose your hat, I still do not believe that liberals have any answers. It is merely that they are able to talk honestly about the excesses, wrongs and usurpations perpetrated by the neo-conservatives. So called 'conservatives' never mention these issues.
This idea of completely federalizing the National Guard is one that has been a long time coming in the mind of the centrist; many in the military foam at the mouth for the opportunity to once and for all eradicate any of the uniqueness of the Guard. It is difficult to wage imperial wars without ready legions. The policies of the neo-cons have made the homeland so insecure that it is a logical step for them to seek more legions. I can tell you they are having no joy recruiting the average Joe to go off and fight their ill-conceived and illegal war. The answer, press-gang the Guard into Federal service under the direct authority of the chief neo-con.
This is yet another slap in the face of states' rights and an affront to the history of organized state militias.
'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.'"
So you ask, why on earth am I reading a blog called the 'Proud Liberal'? Have I gone pinko commie?
No, the sad fact is that in this world turned upside down the liberals at times seem to be the only folks capable of seeing what is wrong. Now don't loose your hat, I still do not believe that liberals have any answers. It is merely that they are able to talk honestly about the excesses, wrongs and usurpations perpetrated by the neo-conservatives. So called 'conservatives' never mention these issues.
This idea of completely federalizing the National Guard is one that has been a long time coming in the mind of the centrist; many in the military foam at the mouth for the opportunity to once and for all eradicate any of the uniqueness of the Guard. It is difficult to wage imperial wars without ready legions. The policies of the neo-cons have made the homeland so insecure that it is a logical step for them to seek more legions. I can tell you they are having no joy recruiting the average Joe to go off and fight their ill-conceived and illegal war. The answer, press-gang the Guard into Federal service under the direct authority of the chief neo-con.
This is yet another slap in the face of states' rights and an affront to the history of organized state militias.
Update and response to A. Nonymous (see comments below)
First let us dissect
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" Key words there being 'To Provide' as in to fund and resource. The Constitution does not say that Congress may actually call the militia to duty. In your own words; Is that clear enough for you?
Second, I never said that the Constitution granted the right to anyone specifically to call forth the militia. However, history speaks for itself. From 1636 until 1916 the Guard was summoned exclusively by the Governors. When Lincoln wanted to make war on the South in 1861 he called on the states to muster a 75,000 of their militia. Obviously at this time it WAS a states' rights issue. When the Constitution is silent on a right then the right remains with the States and the people (10th Amendment)
Third, during the Spanish American War it was determined that the President did not have the authority to send militia units outside of the United States and individual militia members had to individually volunteer. So obviously the President has not always had the power to use the National Guard/militia as auxiliary legionaries in foreign wars.
Fourth, the National Guard Act of 1916 was only a law, not a Constitutional principle. This law was contrary to almost 300 years of previous history, it was an affront to states' rights just as the proposed legislation mentioned above is.
So NO, the entire concept of a governor's authority over the militia of his state is not based solely on the law from the 1950's you reference, that law merely supported what was already the de facto standard based upon three centuries of history.
Finally, don't be so rude. If you want to comment on someone's blog and be condescending when you do it at least have the nerve to leave your web address.
states' rights
No comments:
Post a Comment