Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State National Guard warns it's stretched to the limit [Schwarzenegger blames Iraq war]
SF Gate ^ | 5/11/07 | Mark Martin

Posted on 05/11/2007 6:12:32 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: Sleeping Beauty

Ahnold has turned into such a girly man. Uncle Teddy giving him a few words to say.


21 posted on 05/11/2007 6:44:57 PM PDT by Road Warrior ‘04 (Soon to be Fredbacker1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

he got the Dean memo, too ?


22 posted on 05/11/2007 6:45:43 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

If Kalifornia didn’t spend so much money on illegal aliens, they’d have plenty of assets to take care of the Guard.


23 posted on 05/11/2007 6:46:30 PM PDT by Road Warrior ‘04 (Soon to be Fredbacker1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

Somebody tell these Governors the Guard isnt a rescue unit unless they happen to be available.

I have a better idea, abolish the guard and expand the Army Reserve so the Governors dont assume they are available for their whims.


24 posted on 05/11/2007 6:47:23 PM PDT by omega4179 (Barack Hussein Obama praying 5x a day to Mecca in the Oval office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

omega — I am so embarrassed to admit I don’t know this — but can you explain the difference between the National Guard and the Army Reserve?


25 posted on 05/11/2007 6:52:08 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

Gee Ahnold, think you might be able to come up with an original thought? Maybe “We need illegal aliens because the Iraq War has take all our men.” You would at least sound like an original thinker.


26 posted on 05/11/2007 7:01:29 PM PDT by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

This kind of talk by the Gov is dangerous. How many nutty people hearing this will now go start forest fires just to prove his point.


27 posted on 05/11/2007 7:07:40 PM PDT by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
If Kalifornia didn’t spend so much money on illegal aliens, they’d have plenty of assets to take care of the Guard.

If Kalifornia deployed some of the Guard at the border, it wouldn't have so many illegals.

28 posted on 05/11/2007 7:07:52 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

The Reserve is totally under army and presidential control at all times.
whereas the state governors have some power of national guard for emergencies within their own states if they are not otherwise mobilized for national defense


Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 H.R. 5122

Federal law was changed so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of the National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take control of a states National Guard units without the governors consent. [1] In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard.(wikipedia, take always with salt)


29 posted on 05/11/2007 7:10:49 PM PDT by omega4179 (Barack Hussein Obama praying 5x a day to Mecca in the Oval office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

Reserves are organized under Title 10, US Code. They are purely Federal in status. The Guard is organized under Title 32 USC, and are under the command of the Governor until called into Federal Service.


30 posted on 05/11/2007 7:11:26 PM PDT by redlegplanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: redlegplanner

That is why I contend they are just an ego trip for governors.


31 posted on 05/11/2007 7:14:12 PM PDT by omega4179 (Barack Hussein Obama praying 5x a day to Mecca in the Oval office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

hmmm...I will just say that Governors who do not understand T10, T32, State Active Duty, and the realationship between these statuses are doing their constituents a disservice. I am a veteran of the 2d battle of New Orleans, and saw this up close.


32 posted on 05/11/2007 7:17:21 PM PDT by redlegplanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
Federal law was changed so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of the National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take control of a states National Guard units without the governors consent.

Well, according to Article I, Sec. 8, the Congress has the following powers: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

So, I guess it would depend on the nature of the emergency, if this was legal. It would have to involve executing Laws, suppressing insurrection, or repelling invasion.

33 posted on 05/11/2007 7:18:43 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

The insurrection act was changed in the 2007 appropriations act. To wit: “Section 1076(a): The John Warner Defense Authorization Act amended the quoted section (10 USC § 333), which is renamed Major Public Emergencies; Interference with State and Federal Law, to allow the President to employ armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal Service, “to restore public order and enforce the laws when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, the President determines that “domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”

This should have been named the “Blanco - Pandemic Influenza” act.


34 posted on 05/11/2007 7:33:23 PM PDT by redlegplanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

Well — since we no longer have a National Guard — in the sense that it was intended —

Perhaps we should start a new homeland security division called the “STATES MILITIA.” This one cannot be sent out of the country or usurped by the Federal Government.

The States can form their own militias (and militia reserves) to deal with state disasters.

Of course, the States would must arm them, provide armories, and provide equipment and maintenance. But — they can never be taken away (or depleted) by the Feds.

What do you think?


35 posted on 05/11/2007 7:41:22 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

Some states have them.


36 posted on 05/11/2007 7:55:57 PM PDT by redlegplanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: redlegplanner; omega4179
As quoted, that would be consistent with the Constitution, since both executing laws and suppressing insurrection are legit reasons for calling the guard into Fed service. Just fighting a remote brush fire, for example, wouldn't qualify. Thus, the quote from Omega is misleading : "The President of the United States will now be able to take control of a states National Guard units without the governors consent." He would not have that power, unless "domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”

It is disturbing on another level, though. Once again, as in the substitution of "authorizing force" instead of "declaring war", it seems the Congress is shirking responsibility. The way the Constitution reads, passing off to the President the decision about when the State authorities have proved incapable gives the Executive the triggering power for calling up the Militia. That power should be directly executed by Congress on a case by case basis.

Same thing with the "Authorization of Force". By passing off the decision to the President, it allows cowards such as Murtha, Kerry, and Clinton to pass off blame when things get tough. I hope future Presidents learn the lesson and demand a straightforward Declaration of War next time the US is threatened. Then, girlie men like Arnie will look foolish for bitching about the equipment being used to defend the US, instead of rusting in depots awaiting the next earthquake.

37 posted on 05/11/2007 7:56:01 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

The difference is that instead of insurrection being the sole cause for using T10 forces (to include Federalized Guard forces), it is now allowed for “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident”.


38 posted on 05/11/2007 7:59:28 PM PDT by redlegplanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty
What do you think?

That they would be unconstitutional. Read Article I, Sec. 8 and 10.

39 posted on 05/11/2007 8:00:02 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: redlegplanner

But the trigger is not the type of incident, but rather the associated out-of-control violence and lawbreaking. I.E.: insurrection against local authority. If there were a terrorist attack ala 9/11, which had no subsequent riots, then I don’t see where this law would be triggered. Where it could be triggered is when another Blanco sat and dithered while half her state rioted. But, then, Congress could have authorized a response in that case anyway.


40 posted on 05/11/2007 8:07:44 PM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson