Posted on 02/24/2007 6:09:52 AM PST by Son House
Congressman Tim Walz co-authored legislation that, if passed, would limit the president’s authority to control the National Guard and put it back in the hands of state governors.
“These provisions contradict the founding principles of this nation,” he said in a statement.
“Neither this president, nor any other, should be given such unchecked control over the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.”
In the new bill, this authority would be removed from the president and returned to the hands of local authorities where it has rested since the passage of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Local authorities are more familiar with the conditions of their own state’s National Guard members and of the state and would be better able to make decisions involving them, he said.
Walz, who is a retired National Guard command sergeant major, said the 1807 law was prompted out of fear that the federal military could be used against the states and that there would be too much centralized control.
He said this legislation would not “hamper” with the president’s ability to defend the nation; it would just affect his ability to control the National Guard within the country.
“They’re consistent issues that I think have come dangerously close to sending too much power to the president over the last couple years,” he said.
For example, Walz said, under last year’s law, the ability of the president to declare martial law was significantly increased.
Similar legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. Because this is a founding principle in the nation, Walz said, the bill also has support of all of the governors in the nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at albertleatribune.com ...
In the new bill, this authority would be removed from the president and returned to the hands of local authorities....
The Constitution of the USPerhaps the congressman should actually read the Constitution.Article II, Section 2 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;...
"and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;..."
He said this legislation would not “hamper” with the president’s ability to defend the nation; it would just affect his ability to control the National Guard within the country.
And if you take the Congressman's word on that, then I have some vertical acreage in Colorado I'd like to sell you.
Who pays for the guard?
How would you like to have Hillary in charge of the Guard while they were operating in the Uniter States?
" And if you take the Congressman's word on that"
I'm sure you can find the bill and read it if you are concerned.
One thing you can take to the bank.
If Patrick Leahy is for it,then it cannot be good.
The Constitution grants that power to the President, regardless of where the "militias" operate. If we don't want Hillary to be Commander and Chief, then she should be defeated in the election. I will not support an unconstitutional law. If the Congressman wants to change the Constitution, then there is a process for doing so.
It's amazing how all these Dems became states-righters when they found out they could screw over the war effort.
It's what Mutha would attach at the last minute
that concerns me.
Walz got elected from the anti-war crowd on the guise
of getting out of Iraq.
His legislation is destin to negitively effect operations in Iraq.
Perhaps the congressman should actually read the Constitution.
It think is wonderful that congressman Tim Walz is going that extra mile to prove what idiots and traitors to the nation and it's constitution he, and the Democrat party really are.
They don't read the constitution because they believe it is irrelevant in modern society. Besides, it "hampers" their dream of turning America into a third world Marxist labor camp.
I'm not exactly sure.
I'm sure it is. His legislation is also in direct contradiction to A II, S 2 of the COTUS.
"For example, Walz said, under last year’s law, the ability of the president to declare martial law was significantly increased."
I think it wise to hamper ANY president, republican or democrat, regarding a declaration of martial law.
" congressman Tim Walz is going that extra mile to prove what idiots and traitors to the nation and it's constitution he, and the Democrat party really are. "
Walz,
who is a retired National Guard command sergeant major,
sure we'll be reminded of this like Kerry serving in Vietnam.
" I think it wise to hamper ANY president, republican or democrat, regarding a declaration of martial law. "
Second Amendment will cover that, till there is a liberal twist.
Would also like to know if the militias are federalized, (called into service by the president), are the various states left without an armed militia under the exclusive control of the governors for the 'security of a free state?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.