Who should control National Guard? Congressman Tim Walz, D-Mn co-authored legislation.

Thus..there is an OHIO national gaurd...AND a state chartered OHIO militia...

I was curious if you had a citation for that? Not that it proves anything one way or the other, when I searched federal case law at Findlaw.com the organization of info places National Guard legal finding as a subheading of Militia.

Start with this freeper thread:

Thanks.

OK, the thread doesn't cite USSC case law regarding the National Guard, but the replies make the case that I stated above, the the NG is part of the regular army, and as such is always under the command of the POTUS, i.e. they don't belong under state jurisdiction at all.

The issue in question relates to:"...a law that passed last year, the president gained the authority to “federalize” the National Guard — bring them under federal control — in times of natural disaster, disease outbreak or other conditions. This can be done even against the wishes of state governors, Walz noted." This bill should have been named for Gov. Blanco as it was her incompetence that provided the impetus for the bill that passed. Basically, last year's law lowered the bar for federalization of the NG for ops within the U.S. It passed quietly w/o a lot of notice. It also relates to the preparations for pandemic influenza (PI) - note provision for federalization in case of "disease outbreak". Finally, it also relates to the continuing inability to rapidly establish unity of command for a multi state incident betwen the respective state NG units and also any Title 10 elements. It can be done via "dual - hatting", but it requires specific memorandum(s) of agreement at the time of the event between the governors involved and POTUS. While possible, it becomes lawyer heaven, and is limited to the person of the commander vice establishing true unity of command.

I can't believe how many people here consider the federalization of a state function to be a GOOD thing. The NG has always been under the control of governors, and up until last year the President could only call them up for foreign wars, or to repel an actal invasion of the U.S. This law last year basically put them fully under the control of the President. If there's a riot in L.A., the President can call in the Nevada National Guard without consulting anybody. Political unrest in Georgia? Send in the New York National Guard. Flood in Lousisiana? Send in the Alaskan National Guard. This is what the law now permits.

The problem is that it completely ignores what the NG was actually formed for. A huge percentage (probably the majority) of NG soldiers join because they want to serve one of two roles...they want to be available to help out in local disasters, or they want to be available to help the other branches of the military when they can't get the job done. Very few have any interest in being redeployed across the country every time there's a hurricane, riot, or earthquake and the President wants to score political points by "doing something".

I was considering re-enlisting in the Guard myself last year, and this law was one of the many reasons that CURRENTLY SERVING Guardsmen warned me against doing so. The power to deploy troops to other states to help with civil or natural disasters SHOULD rest with the governors, and not the President. The NG is NOT intended to be a full time active duty branch of the military, and yet the entire reason for vesting this power with the President was to allow him (or her, if Billary gets elected) to utilize it like one. It's bad, and it's going to kill NG recruitment.

The co-author of this bill is a Republican, and the goal is a good one. I really don't care what the motivations of the 'Rat co-sponsor are, I hope this passes.

I think however, if the National Guard is not legally considered a militia, it then would fall under the control of the regular military, and is subsequently still under the authority of the President.

The 1903 Militia Act was intended to unify the various state militias into one coherent system with some sort of federal status. It imposed minimum training requirements and standardized weapons and ammunition between the various state militias. The governors would have never approved it, so to get their concession the Militia Act included provisions which allowed them to remain under state control unless needed for war or national emergency. This law last year essentially repeals that clause of the Militia Act and strips the governors of their authority over their domestic use.

Some states have never gone along well with even the pre-2006 version of the Guard, and have a second militia as well. These aren't affected by the law change, but the President does (and always has) had the authority to call them into federal service during an actual invasion or rebellion.

and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;...

That militia referred to in the above phrase is NOT the National Guard. The NG is a reserve component of the US Army created by the Dick Act of 1906. It is usually under state control but can be federalized at any time by order of the president. The state militias referred to under the Federal Militia Acts can only be called into Federal service by act of Congress as they were during the Civil War.

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.