Posted on 08/24/2009 8:33:55 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
The state’s adjutant general of the South Dakota National Guard and Gov. Mike Rounds are among state leaders opposed to a Pentagon proposal involving control of how part-time military troops are used in any state.
At the heart of the disagreement is who will command troops when they are sent to a particular state to deal with a hurricane, wildfire or other disaster.
The military justifies a change in law as a natural extension of its use of federal forces.
The governors see the Pentagon move as a strike at state sovereignty.
Rounds agrees with the National Governors Association’s opposition to the plan.
“When we’re dealing with natural disasters, we’ve got a response system in place that works,” Rounds said in an e-mail statement. “Sometimes you need more forces, such as reservists, as part of the existing structure to respond to emergencies. We do not want a separate Pentagon chain of command that would complicate response efforts.”
State adjutant, Maj. Gen Steven Doohen, who is also state secretary of military and veterans affairs, said having a commander who doesn’t know an area, its resources or people, would only add to the chaos of a flood, wildfire or aftermath of a tornado or blizzard.
“I think most of the states' governors feel the command of any military forces brought into their state should be handled under the control of the governor for unity of effort,” Doohen said. “They should be in charge of the military troops in their state. Federal troops should also be under their command.”
Doohen said a governor has all the contacts, knows the mayors and officials in the state and National Guard, who have been fighting fires and responding to other state disasters.
“It just doesn’t make much sense for others to oversee a state’s natural disaster,” he said.
The Pentagon argues a change is needed so the president, through his defense chief, would gain the ability to mobilize soldiers when a state seeks aid in a catastrophic natural disaster such as a hurricane.[Or domestic "terrorism" even? Remember "The List" from what'sherface at DHS?]
The nation’s 380,000 reservists come under the control of the federal government.
Each state’s National Guard also can be activated for federal duty, as many have been for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most often, the guardsmen are commanded by their governors through their home-state adjutant general.
When the military gets involved, questions arise about “who is in control and where the buck is going to stop. Governors take very seriously the responsibility of being in command and control of those responders,” said NGA spokesman David Quam.
“That’s where the discussion lies,” Doohen agreed.
“You need a clear chain of command even when you bring federalized troops. The governor needs to be in charge,” he said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he does not favor ceding control of federal forces to state governors.
In 2007, Gates rejected a proposal in an independent commission report that would to let governors command active-duty troops responding to disasters.
The debate about authority over deploying stateside troops comes as a Department of Defense initiative sends National Guard units new equipment to put them on the same level as active-duty Army units. Standardizing new equipment aims to make supply and maintenance easier.
The change-out will replace outdated vehicles but may not change readiness. Camp Rapid logistics director Lt. Col. Les Wermers said the state Guard’s equipment mission-capable rate already is well above the Army National Guard’s historical rate of 70 percent.
“Our operational readiness rate is well into the 90s; and we have a very robust maintenance program,” Wermers said.
And the Innovative Readiness Training program to hone troop equipment and teamwork skills. The field projects also help communities, ranging from maintenance on Hammerquist Baseball Field in Rapid City, reclamation of Black Hills National Forest sites and removing old school demolition debris at Faith.
Another article related more closely to States Rights generally instead of the 10th Amendment movement, but not being intimately familiar with the Guard structure I wanted to see some discussion of this issue - FWIW.
It is time for all concerned states to organize their own true militias in thr Article I, Sec 8 sense that are only subject to Federal service by an Act of Congress.
The National Guard is a reserve component of the US Army since the Dick Act of 1906. It is subject to federalization by DOD and the POTUS.
I was in the NG for 16 years and on my left breast fatigue pocket was the patch “U.S. Army.” not “Illinois State Militia.”
That’s what I’d do. ;)
Unconstitutional.
The governors see the Pentagon move as a strike at state sovereignty.
Rounds agrees with the National Governors Association’s opposition to the plan.
“When we’re dealing with natural disasters, we’ve got a response system in place that works,” Rounds said in an e-mail statement. “Sometimes you need more forces, such as reservists, as part of the existing structure to respond to emergencies. We do not want a separate Pentagon chain of command that would complicate response efforts.”
Feds aren’t content to take over the banking auto, healthcare industry, and census. Now they want the CIA interrogation function and the National Guard. Paranoid folks might get the idea they are borrowing ideas from Germany circa 1933....
As well as do I want to see some discussion as to the legality of this. I didn’t think National Guard could be “federalized” except in the event of war. Aren’t these the individual state’s malitia and federalizing this would allow raising an army against the states from their own populations?
Just asking what the real principles and rules of this are.
He wants them to quell civil unrest/disobedience. He knows it’s coming after watching the angry seniors at townhall meetings! Things went too fast and he didn’t get a chance to build his army of brown shirts so he needs all the help he can get!
These changes are always proposed in such a benign manner and always makes such sense EXCEPT they are all LIES. If people who voted for this monster can’t see what is happening right in front of their eyes......well God help them. This is clearly to remove the power from States...period. And why? I think most FR people know.
“They had better be careful or they will lose all their sovereignty.”
Do you not live in a state? You will lose your sovereignty as a citizen of that state as well. It’s not just the governors it’s all of us.
Paranoid folks might get the idea they are borrowing ideas from Germany circa 1933....
and you can count me in among the paranoid folks.
Thank you for your service and adherance to the law.
Paranoid folks might get the idea they are borrowing ideas from Germany circa 1933....
and you can count me in among the paranoid folks.
______________________
Me, too.
Oath Keepers!!!
Wermers? Dean Wermers?
Yep. I hate to burst anyone's bubble on here, but Washington can do this without breaking a sweat, and there's nothing the state's can do about it. That ship sailed long ago.
If a state wanted to withdraw from a Federal relationship, I imagine they'd have to cough up all the materiel back to the Active and Reserve components. I can't imagine many states have much in the way of state-owned military equipment.
From an otherwise very lengthy ARTICLE:
The National Defense Act of 1920 established the Army of the United States, to consist of the Regular Army, the Organized Reserve Corps and the National Guard, when called into federal service.
An amendment to the National Defense Act passed on June 15,1933 created a new Army component, the National Guard of the United States. This component, while identical in personnel and organization to the National Guard of the states, was a part of the Army at all times, and could be ordered into active federal service by the president whenever Congress declared a national emergency. Thus it became possible for the National Guard to be given an Army mission without having to wait for a "call" to be issued by the various state governors.
In August 1940, President Roosevelt ordered the National Guard of the United States into active service. Between September 16, 1940, and October 6,1941, the National Guard brought into federal service more than 300,000 men, in 18 combat divisions, as well as numerous non-divisional units, including 4,800 men from the 29 National Guard observation squadrons. The number of Guardsmen federalized doubled the strength of the active Army, and the National Guard observation squadrons, due to their high state of training, helped to expand the U.S. Army Air Forces.
The Dick Act of 1902 seemed designed more to bring the Guard up to speed than anything else but I just did a quick and dirty reading.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely...his sly whispers heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears to be no traitor; he speaks in the accents familar to his victims...and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night...to infect the body politic so that it can no longer resist..." - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 B.C.)
The topic covered in the article strikes me as Leftist Obamunist outreach for setting precedent with the intent of entrapping State Militias to Federal control. Camel’s nose under the edge of the tent sort of thing.
IOW more “change” in the direction of the Socialist/Democrat agenda towards Socialism.
I wish more were as concerned as myself and say LucyT about the 70 card carrying Marxist/Socialists currently occupying seats in our Government. These are the people eagerly dreaming up these diabolical Leftist schemes and supporting the legislation of same.
yes. And this as current as the day it was written.
It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the State, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.2Accordingly, SCOTUS dismissed the objection under the 13th Amendment as a contention that was ‘‘refuted by its mere statement.’’3
The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.4 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.5 The act of February 28, 17956, which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.7 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not ‘‘employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,’’ but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.8
The power of Congress over the militia ‘‘being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government . . .’’9 Under the National Defense Act of 191610, the militia, which hitherto had been an almost purely state institution, was brought under the control of the National Government. The term ‘‘militia of the United States’’ was defined to comprehend ‘‘all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,’’ between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The act reorganized the National Guard, determined its size in proportion to the population of the several States, required that all enlistments be for ‘‘three years in service and three years in reserve,’’ limited the appointment of officers to those who ‘‘shall have successfully passed such tests as to . . . physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe,’’ and authorized the President in certain emergencies to ‘‘draft into the military service of the United States to serve therein for the period of the war unless sooner discharged, any or all members of the National Guard and National Guard Reserve,’’ who thereupon should ‘‘stand discharged from the militia.’’11
The Court has approved the system of ‘‘dual enlistment,’’ under which persons enlisted in state militia (National Guard) units simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, and, when called to active duty in the federal service, are relieved of their status in the state militia. Consequently, the restrictions in the first militia clause have no application to the federalized National Guard; there is no constitutional requirement that state governors hold a veto power over federal duty training conducted outside the United States or that a national emergency be declared before such training may take place.12
================================================
References:
1) Selective Draft Law Cases,, 245 U.S. 366, 381, 382 (1918).
2) Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 333 (1916).
3) 245 U.S. 390.
4) Moore v. Houston, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 169 (1817), affirmed, Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820).
5) Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869); Tyler v. Defrees, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 331 (1871).
6) 1 Stat. 424 (1795), 10 U.S.C. § 332.
7) Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19, 32 (1827).
8) Houston, Ibid; Martin, Ibid.
9) Houston, Ibid; Organizing and providing for the militia being constitutionally committed to Congress and statutorily shared with the Executive, the judiciary is precluded from exercising oversight over the process, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973); although wrongs committed by troops are subject to judicial relief in damages, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 233 (1974).
10) 39 Stat. 166, 197, 198, 200, 202, 211 (1916), codified in sections of Titles 10 & 32. See Wiener, The Militia Clause of the Constitution, 54 HARV. L. REV. 181 (1940).
11) Military and civilian personnel of the National Guard are state, rather than federal, employees and the Federal Government is thus not liable under the Tort Claims Act for their negligence. Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965).
12) Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 434 (1990).
Uncle Sam pays for the National Guard, not the states.
Various governors have "called up" the Guard for various and sundry reasons for as long as I can remember. Most recently for hurricane relief in New Orleans during Katrina and flooding in the Midwest possibly. So, I'm just not at all informed on how the authority flows on a stateside deployment.
Could you cite any laws/regulations that speak directly to this or would you rather I just take your word for it? ;^)
Title 10 or Title 12? THat is what ‘normally’ drives the command.
OTOH, When has Washington NOT over-reached?
Many thanks. It appears from that piece the States aren’t left with much to hang their hats on. I also gather the federales can basically do just about anything with the “militia” it wants to. Now, that being the case, any idea what has caused the chafing with the folks in SoDak?
See post #22. Appears to me the feds pretty much have free rein.
Chain of command. Its a moot point, when the Fed activates the National Guard, they are no longer under State authority, they’re automatically inducted into the National Guard of the United States, i.e., active duty. HOWEVER, the governor can order the State’s Adjujant General to mobilize the National Guard to the emergency area and superced the Fed. Troops will remain under State control then.
“They had better be careful or they will lose all their sovereignty.”
Do you not live in a state? You will lose your sovereignty as a citizen of that state as well. It’s not just the governors it’s all of us.
As I live in the Soviet Republic of Chicago (which used to be IL/Land of Lincoln), I feel I already have :(
Really??? That's a question I was going to ask but after reading your cite it just seemed the feds held all the cards re the "militia". You have a cite for that?
The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.4Now, I don't know what happens if it gets into a pissing match, say the Gov tells the Adjutant General to mobilize the troops to the disaster area (provided all the transit State governors permit travel through their fiefdoms), and the Fed calls them up. That, I'm virtually certain, would be challenged before SCOTUS.
In the case of Katrina, didn't the LA governatrix not allow foreign troops on her soil? Wasn't there a big pissing match between the NO Mayor, the LA Gov and the Pres? That was acceptable because it was Bush's fault.
Hmmm, a bit vague but then I'm not a lawyer. Maybe that was the intent???
Now, I don't know what happens if it gets into a pissing match, say the Gov tells the Adjutant General to mobilize the troops to the disaster area (provided all the transit State governors permit travel through their fiefdoms), and the Fed calls them up. That, I'm virtually certain, would be challenged before SCOTUS.
No doubt.
In the case of Katrina, didn't the LA governatrix not allow foreign troops on her soil? Wasn't there a big pissing match between the NO Mayor, the LA Gov and the Pres? That was acceptable because it was Bush's fault.
I recall something about Blanco(?) not wanting to go along with the Bush people's plans, which, if memory serves was that the feds would all but run the show in LA and NO. I don't recall the final outcome except Blanco(?) may have won the battle but lost the war in NO.
Anyways, I found this, thought it was all pretty interesting that back in 2008 Bush was evil, so this had to get repealed ASAP. Guess what? Now that Bush is STILL evil but no longer President, guess what they gotta do?
Bill Restores Guard authority
Posted on: Sunday, December 23, 2007
The governors, who were the sole commanders of guard units during emergencies until the law took effect this year, were outraged over the law, saying it sows confusion over who is in charge of the National Guard during emergencies.
The law stemmed from a dispute between President Bush, himself a former Texas governor, and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco over control of National Guard troops in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Congress responded by slipping the expanded authority for the president into legislation last year with little notice and without consulting the governors.
"As currently written, it calls into question whether the governor or the president has primary responsibility," North Carolina Gov. Michael F. Easley said earlier this year.
The 2006 law expanded the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows presidents to use active-duty or National Guard troops only for domestic police actions to put down rebellions or to enforce constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so.
The law also said the president could take control of National Guard troops without a governor's consent in cases where public order breaks down as a result of natural disasters, epidemics, terrorist attacks or "other conditions."
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a former governor, said the ambiguity of the phrase "other conditions" makes it almost certain that presidents would take control during state emergencies and needed to be repealed.
===================================================== Guess who don't care what the Govs feel about the matter? Besides, evil Bush isn't in the White House any more, so its all good.
I have wondered if ANY military commander would order their troops to fire on protesters at this point?
If so there will be war here.
Keep National Guard troops under state control.
What's to discuss? This is jaw-droppingly, preposterously unconstitutional.
In one of the Civil Rights/School Integration cases last century, Governor Faubus of Arkansas called up the state's National Guard to prevent the enrollment of "colored" kids into a previously-all-white Little Rock school.
President Eisenhower then federalized the Arkansas NG to prevent its use in that capacity.
Bill restores Guard authority
WASHINGTON — Hawai'i Gov. Linda Lingle and other governors nationwide could soon find planning for hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters easier after regaining more authority over their National Guard troops in responding to domestic emergencies. That would happen if President Bush signs congressionally approved legislation to repeal a year-old law that gave presidents more power to take control of National Guard units to react to natural disasters or other public emergencies without the governors' consent. The governors, who were the sole commanders of guard units during emergencies until the law took effect this year, were outraged over the law, saying it sows confusion over who is in charge of the National Guard during emergencies. The governors, backed by their state adjutants general and local law enforcement officials, said the law hurts domestic response planning and exceeds the traditional limits of presidential power in times of crisis. Lingle said her top priority as governor is the safety and security of the state's citizens and visitors. "It does not make sense to diminish a governor's authority over its state National Guard," Lingle said. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said the law was "a dumb idea fortunately extinguished." "We didn't think it made sense at the time, and I think we will be better off for it," said Sanford, a leader on National Guard matters for the National Governors Association. The 5,500-member Hawai'i National Guard is an essential element in emergency responses throughout the island state, responding to a dam breach, several earthquakes and wildfires and rain-caused flooding in the past two years. Its helicopters, for example, dropped about 750,000 gallons of water in August during the Waialua wildfire on O'ahu. More than 30 guardsmen helped with search and recovery efforts on Maui after heavy rains in early December caused floods that damaged roads and homes, said Hawai'i Adjutant General Robert Lee of the state National Guard. "We've just got the National Guard mobilized for cleanup at this point and manning the disaster assistance centers," Lee said. Lee, who was among the state adjutants general opposing the law, said there was no need for the federal government to take over a state's National Guard when it's handling state emergencies. "If I was wondering whether I could have access to my troops, I tell you I don't think we could have reacted as fast (to the Maui flooding)," Lee said. The law stemmed from a dispute between President Bush, himself a former Texas governor, and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco over control of National Guard troops in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Congress responded by slipping the expanded authority for the president into legislation last year with little notice and without consulting the governors. "As currently written, it calls into question whether the governor or the president has primary responsibility," North Carolina Gov. Michael F. Easley said earlier this year. The 2006 law expanded the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows presidents to use active-duty or National Guard troops only for domestic police actions to put down rebellions or to enforce constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so. The law also said the president could take control of National Guard troops without a governor's consent in cases where public order breaks down as a result of natural disasters, epidemics, terrorist attacks or "other conditions." The repeal is part of the defense authorization bill for the fiscal year, which began Oct. 1. Congress approved it last week and sent it to Bush. It's expected to become law, despite Bush's concern about control over the guard. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a former governor, said the ambiguity of the phrase "other conditions" makes it almost certain that presidents would take control during state emergencies and needed to be repealed. "We had to get that out," said Bond, a co-chairman of the 80-member Senate National Guard Caucus. Delaware Adjutant General Francis D. Vavala said the 2006 law was unnecessary and questioned its constitutionality. "In my personal opinion, it was sort of a knee jerk-reaction to the finger-pointing that occurred around Katrina," said Vavala, president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States. The Bush administration had sought the increased authority and opposed the repeal. The result would be "detrimental to the president's ability to employ the armed forces effectively" to respond to major domestic emergencies," a statement said. "It was, in essence, a real power grab," Sanford said. "The presumption has always been, from an operational standpoint, that people who are local probably have a better sense of how to deal with a problem than somebody 500 miles away." Sanford said that, for example, his state holds exercises and conferences during the year with the National Guard and emergency responders on dealing with a hurricane disaster. "How dumb would it be to ... have somebody come in who has not been part of any of that and say 'I'm in charge now,' " Sanford said. "That's exactly what this proposal would have done in the event we are hit by a hurricane." [[END OF ARTICLE]] Even though I don't necessarily agree with it, I can see the rationale behind the Pubbies passage of the law in '06. They were placed in the unenviable position of being eviscerated by the Dims and the dinomedia for everything that went wrong in the early stages of the Katrina response while not having the authority to do anything about it. All of which brings us back to a point in an earlier post of yours, that is, the SCOTUS seems to have come down on the side of the federales on similar, if not identical situations, so we're almost back where we started: Fuzzy lines of authority. However, given a choice, particularly with the present bunch of hooligans in DC, I want the States in primary control of the Guard. Now I gotta try to catch a few more winks...
” It is time for all concerned states to organize their own true militias in thr Article I, Sec 8 sense that are only subject to Federal service by an Act of Congress.”
Apparently, South Carolina has one, a state militia separate from the national guard and commanded by the governor. Don’t know much about it. I see little stickers on vehicles announcing themselves as members of the 1st or 2nd South Carolina regiments, apparently a nod to the original militia under Col. Moultrie who successfully defended Charleston against a British attack in July, 1776.
I’ll learn more in the coming weeks.
Use of federal troops on American soil for domestic operations is a violation of the constitution Posse Comitatus Act
20 Stat. L., 145
June 18, 1878
CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.
SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375
Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
18 U.S.C. 1385
Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of
Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to
execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Editor’s Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)
But this Homeland Security Memo uses if’s and’s and but’s
and is probably the mindset of the Federalis’ that would preclude any law.
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm
My opinion......the mere penalty of law and the fines are minute in the scope of trillions dollar budgets and most likely will be ignored. Katrina is the most glaring violation setting a precedent.
“I imagine they’d have to cough up all the materiel back to the Active and Reserve components. I can’t imagine many states have much in the way of state-owned military equipment.”
One bullet at a time!
“any idea what has caused the chafing with the folks in SoDak?”
Perhaps a few hundred missile silos under the command of NORAD makes the Dakotas a significant military priority?
Kent State didn’t start a college hippy war...........
Although it was never clear who ordered the Guard to shoot.........
The incident certainly brought the anti war protests down to a civil disobedience stage from a civil disorder level.
Don’t think for a minute that some people won’t be made examples first, before the public disobedience splinters out of fear of authority.
The article says, "...deal with a hurricane, wildfire or other disaster."
I haven't read all the posts yet but here is what I have been thinking: How will the local and state LEOs and the State National Guard units respond to orders to put down the "angry mobs" ?? Will they follow orders to shoot or will they follow their conscience?
The President has to be considering those questions, don't you think?
Obama Attacks CIA to Quell ObamaCare Protests and Establish Secret Police
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2324070/posts
BFL
Posse Comitatus was legislation passed after the Civil War that restricted deployment of active military within the states, not a constitutional amendment. AFAIK there is nothing in the constitution that speaks directly to this issue, but it's also my impression there ware no enumerated powers within the Constitution either authorizing or maintaining a standing army. It's also my understanding that the Founders for the most part were not keen on the concept of a standing army and evidently didn't see the need to broach the subject. More grey areas??? I wonder how the idea would fare if put to a vote today?
My opinion......the mere penalty of law and the fines are minute in the scope of trillions dollar budgets and most likely will be ignored. Katrina is the most glaring violation setting a precedent.
Yeah, the penalties themselves are not much of a deterrent. Could you clarify your statement re Katrina?
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.