Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard

[Demeter]

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453

Friday, January 12, 2007
Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard
By Kavan Peterson, Staff Writer



Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act...The change adds to tensions between governors and the White House after more than four years of heavy federal deployment of state-based Guard forces to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, four out of five guardsmen have been sent overseas in the largest deployment of the National Guard since World War II. Shortage of the Guard’s military equipment – such as helicopters to drop hay to snow-stranded cattle in Colorado – also is a nagging issue as much of units’ heavy equipment is left overseas and unavailable in case of a natural disaster at home...
The nation's governors through the National Governors Association (NGA) successfully lobbied to defeat a broader proposal to give the president power to federalize Guard troops without invoking the Insurrection Act. But the passage that became law also "disappointed" governors because it expands federal power and could cause confusion between state and federal authorities trying to respond to an emergency situation, said David Quam, an NGA homeland security advisor.

Under the U.S. Constitution, each state's National Guard unit is controlled by the governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the president. The National Guard employs 444,000 part-time soldiers between its two branches: the Army and Air National Guards.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so. Under that law, the president can declare an insurrection and call in the armed forces. The act has been invoked only a handful of times in the past 50 years, including in 1957 to desegregate schools and in 1992 during riots in south central Los Angeles after the acquittal of police accused of beating Rodney King.

A bipartisan majority of both chambers of Congress adopted the change as part of the 439-page, $538 billion 2007 Defense Authorization Bill signed into law last October...Congress changed the Insurrection Act to list "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident" as conditions under which the president can deploy U.S. armed forces and federalize state Guard troops if he determines that "authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."

[EST]

1. Oh my, I'd thought that didn't make it through.

Something that needs to be reversed, post haste.

[Morgana LaFey]

7. Reversed by whom?

the "bipartisan majority of both chambers of Congress" that passed it?

Apparently, IF they knew what was in that bill, the "bipartisan majority of both chambers of Congress" thought it was a GOOD thing.

Oh my God, what deep, deep trouble we're in.

[EST]

8. We are, indeed, in deep shit.

I recall that we were all up in arms about those counter to logic and rights inclusions and there were a few loud noises from DC and then it stopped as suddenly as it started.

I don't recall precisely, but it appears that
I made the assumption, since the furor had disappeared, that horrid legislation had been dropped.
Obviously, I made the mistake (again) that most people have a better nature that they can call on when big questions arise.

We are screwed, big time.

[IndyOp]

2. I am hoping Leahy has this HIGH on his list of priorities. (n/t)

[fooj]

3. Can we label Republicans as enemy combatants yet?

[monarch]

4. K & R

This is a very important issue that doesn't get nearly enough attention.

[HockeyMom]

5. 60% of the Guard Overseas?

I read that somewhere. Even our dearly, departed Pataki(R) was complaining about it. Putting aside natural disasters, e.g., Katrina, etc., what about an attack? Who is going to protect us? Oh, I forgot "fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here." :sarcasm: Local law enforcement is not prepared, nor equipped, to handle it all. I lived through the last attack. All I saw around me was NATIONAL GUARD. Now where are they? In IRAQ, and soon to be, IRAN.

Surge, my you know what. Makes me furious.

[scarletwoman]

6. Don't worry. There are plenty of private "security" firms now. I'm sure our Dear Leader

will make sure that they pick up the slack.

sw

[EST]

9. Actually, it is even worse.

According to reports, four of five hove been deployed to Iraq, although some have been rotated back home. That makes it eighty percent.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. How long have we been predicting he'd do this? YEARS.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so.

I cannot believe the Democrats voted for this and didn't FILIBUSTER. Do they realize what they've done? G-d help us all.:(

[pberq]

11. another example of the imperial presidency and a complicit Congress