A call to arms! Ballot initiative to bring the Mass. NG home

[unhappycamper]

HomeFromIraqNow.org CERTIFIED

Great news!

Last week, the Massachusetts attorney general certified the HomeFromIraqNow.org ballot initiative, clearing the way for our campaign to begin collecting the signatures needed to place the question before the voters in November 2006.
We now have two months to build an organization to collect 100,000 signatures, and we need your help. There will be a meeting to begin planning the signature drive on Thursday September 15 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the Brookline Public Library, 361 Washington Street in Brookline. (For more information, please call Jack Hall, 617-738-6028. For directions, click on http://www.brooklinelibrary.com/LibInfo/directions.htm )

WHAT THE INITIATIVE SAYS

The initiative, which is binding, has two provisions. 1) The governor is required to use all legal avenues available to bring about the recall of the National Guard from Iraq and to prevent any further deployment of National Guard troops to Iraq. 2) The governor may not deploy the National Guard to any foreign destination without approval of the state legislature.

The language was crafted by constitutional law experts who have litigated past national guard issues on behalf of the state of Massachusetts.

Because of the legal limitations of the ballot initiative process, the initiative is restricted to the National Guard. However, once it is on the ballot in November 2006, it will provide a vehicle for people to vote on the broader issue of bringing all military personnel home from Iraq.

WHO IS SUPPORTING HomeFromIraqNow.org?

As of today, HomeFromIraqNow.org has been endorsed by the following organizations. If you don't see your group on this list and think it should be, please get in touch with us!

Military Families Speak Out
United For Justice with Peace
Veterans For Peace, Massachusetts Chapter 9
Veterans For Peace, Massachusetts Chapter 45
Traprock Peace Center
Newton Dialogues on Peace and War

HOW YOU CAN HELP

There are three things you can do to help.

If you are interested in joining the campaign, and in particular if you can help us collect signatures, please send email to [e-mail] with your contact information, and we will be in touch.

If you are interested in helping run the campaign, or if you know of an organization that you think should be invited join the campaign, please contact Jackson Hall ([e-mail], 617-738-6028) or Harold Hubschman ([e-mail], 617-731-4754).

If you're interested in publicizing the campaign and helping us recruit volunteers to collect signatures in Massachusetts, please forward this email to everyone you know.

We hope to see you on Thursday, September 15.

Harold Hubschman

HomeFromIraqNow.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please Note: If you would like to support this campaign, the simplest thing you can do is forward this message to as many people as you can think of, and encourage them to do the same. If you prefer not to receive future email from HomeFromIraqNow.org, please send a note to that effect to [e-mail] and you will be removed from this list immediately. If you feel the need to express displeasure that you are on this list or in general about the objectives of the campaign, you will get extra points for creative use of language.


on edit: change title of thread

[TaleWgnDg]

1. Hhhhhmmmm, number 1 sounds good . . . but not number 2.

.
Hhhhhmmmm, number 1 sounds good . . . but not number 2. Why do I say that? Because pursuant to both our federal and state constitutions, our Governor, as well as the governors of each state in the nation, is the Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard in his/her respective states. Therefore, no state legislature should "second-guess" the duties of the state Commander-in-Chief. It's been that way since the inception of our state constitution and should remain that way. I see no rationale for changing that which began on Lexington Green and on Concord Bridge on April 19, 1774, when deploying our state militia.

_______________________________________________

edited to add: here's what "HomeFromIraqNow.org" states is the official ballot initiative on its website:

"The complete text of the initiative is: 'The governor shall take all necessary steps under G.L. c. 33, s. 39 and all other provisions of law or the Constitution and issue all necessary orders to bring about the immediate withdrawal of all Massachusetts National Guard troops subject to his authority from Iraq and their return to, or retention within, the Commonwealth.' "
http://homefromiraqnow.org/
(as last visited Tuesday, September 13, 2005, at 7:00 AM EDT)

I find nothing in the above "complete text" that states anything about #2 as stated in the OP's post. Absolutely nothing! Did the ballot initiative change? Did Attorney General Tom Reilly certify a different ballot initiative? What's going on? The official website states one thing and the OP states differently?
.

[TayTay]

2. Well, we in MA have a history of opposing illegal wars

Remember this?

http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/A70c-Mass.pdf#search='Massachusetts%20Vietnam%20Sargent%20legal'

Massachusetts In The Federal Courts: The Constitutionality Of The Vietnam War, by
Anthony A. D'Amato*, 4 Journal of Law Reform 11 (1970) Code A70c

I. INTRODUCTION

One of the most singular pieces of legislation in American constitutional history passed both houses of the Massachusetts legislature on April 1st, 1970, and was signed into law on the following day by Governor Francis W. Sargent. It provides that, except for an emergency, no inhabitant of Massachusetts inducted into or serving in the armed forces "shall be required to serve" abroad in an armed hostility that has not been declared a war by Congress under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution. The bill further directs the state's attorney general to bring a suit testing the legality of the war in the Supreme Court as a matter of original jurisdiction.

The Massachusetts legislature, in passing the bill, created a conflict between state law and national policy. It, thereby, hoped to place before the Supreme Court the question of the bill's constitutionality, and, derivatively, the constitutionality of the Vietnam War. The bill asserts the legislators' belief that both the state of Massachusetts and its citizens are denied their constitutional rights when the President of this country forces those citizens to fight in an undeclared, and thereby unconstitutional, war.

This was one of the more unusual actions taken way back when to oppose the war. And the courts, of course, denied it. But we in Ma have an interesting and proud history of opposing immoral and illegal wars.

Oh, and I'm in. I will contact these folks and see about helping to get sigs in the Lowell area.

[TaleWgnDg]

3. Am still curious about the disparity in the OP's post and in the

url to which he refers. And, yes, I do recall that attempt. Thought it a plausible challenge to make anti-Vietnam War noise at that time.
.

[unhappycamper]

6. Mr. Hubschman's reply:

Nationally, the president is the commander in chief of federal armed forces, but the federal constitution gives Congress, and through it, the people who elected Congress, sole power to declare war, and the president cannot deploy our troops overseas without that prior Congressional authorization.

We are simply creating a similar system in Massachusetts. The issue is not one of second guessing the Governor/Commander in Chief on the logistics of deployment. What we are doing is putting into the hands of the legislature, and through it, into the hands of the people, the ultimate decision of whether to allow, on a case by case basis, the national guard to be deployed overseas.

[TaleWgnDg]

10. unhappycamper, please read my post #1 carefully . . .

.
unhappycamper, before going any further would you please read my post #1 in this DU thread carefully . . .

After doing so . . . I begin

1. Hubschman stated in post #6: "Nationally, the president is the commander in chief of federal armed forces, but the federal constitution gives Congress, and through it, the people who elected Congress, sole power to declare war, and the president cannot deploy our troops overseas without that prior Congressional authorization."

The federal model that Hubschman suggests is legally incorrect. Our federal constitution expressly grants our U.S. Congress (and only our U.S. Congress) the authority to "declare war." However, that express constitutional authority does not necessitate a declaration of war by our U.S. Congress before a sitting U.S. President (as Commander-in-Chief) may deploy our military in a foreign land. Many times in our country's history presidents have deployed troops overseas without a declaration of war by Congress. And, many times our country has employed mandatory conscription of American male residents into those conflicts!

Hubschman stated in post #6: "We are simply creating a similar system in Massachusetts. The issue is not one of second guessing the Governor/Commander in Chief on the logistics of deployment. What we are doing is putting into the hands of the legislature, and through it, into the hands of the people, the ultimate decision of whether to allow, on a case by case basis, the national guard to be deployed overseas."

Thus, Hubschman's "federal model" cannot be made a "similar system in Massachusetts." One cannot legally model something after something that does not legally exist.

Here, I revert back to my post #1 in this DU thread and repeat that we, here, in Massachusetts should not attempt to "second-guess" our state commander-in-chief (the Governor) of our state militia (Massachusetts National Guard).

Hubschman is apparently claiming that "the people" are more informed about state security matters than is the Governor whose job description includes access to such knowledge. Hubschman is also claiming that the body politic -- the state legislature -- is in a better position than is the Commander-in-Chief/Governor!

Does Hubschman understand that he is placing himself in direct conflict with those who founded our nation including John Adams who authored our Massachusetts constitution? John Adams is one of our most illustrious founding fathers who worked diligently to overthrow King George! Hubschman disagrees with them! Or is Hubschman and others like him without historic knowledge or legal foresight?

As I stated in my post #1 in this DU thread, the authority vested to the state Commander-in-Chief/Governor has remained as is since the inception of John Adams' constitution and should remain so today. Massachusetts has a long and proud history of our state militia since the days of Lexington Green and Concord Bridge on April 19, 1774. And I do not think it is legally wise nor historically prudent to toss away that which John Adams so dutifully authored.

2. unhappycamper, you refer DUers to an url hyperlink in your Original Post and that hyperlink (as I stated in my post #1 in this DU thread) does not contain the information that you allege. Thus, my question was and is, what is the full and complete language of this ballot initiative? Is it what you allege in your OP? or is it something else? All that being said, as an attorney, I'd prefer analyzing the actual language of this ballot initiative and not someone else's interpretation of that legal language.

________________________

edited to add: I shall check Reilly's office for the ballot filings . . . sheesh.

.

[TaleWgnDg]

11. I am answering my own unanswered question . . .

.
I am answering my own unanswered question . . .

There are TWO SEPARATE and DISTINCT ballot initiatives that were presented to the Massachusetts Attorney General for certification, both of which are proposed by Harold Hubschman. That said, despite the website as the OP posted has only one of the ballot initiatives as of Wednesday, September 14, 2005 at 12:30 AM EDT and the OP/unhappycamper's post stated another separate and distinct ballot initiative of Hubschman. Thus, the confusion.

My question needs answering. Clarification is necessary.

Clarification is obtained from the website of the state public official whose duty it is to retain and act upon these proposed ballot initiatives. Attorney General Tom Reilly is that person and here's what his website states:

1.) ballot initiative #05-03 reads as follows:

An Act To Bring Our Troops Home
Be It Enacted By The People And By Their Authority:

SECTION 1. The governor shall take all necessary steps under G.L. c. 33, s. 39 and all other provisions of law or the Constitution and issue all necessary orders to bring about the immediate withdrawal of all Massachusetts National Guard troops subject to his authority from Iraq and their return to, or retention within, the Commonwealth.
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/filelibrary/petition05-03.rtf (.rtf format)

And, the Commonwealth in layman's language "summarizes" ballot initiative #05-03 as:

SUMMARY OF NO. 05-03
This proposed law would require the Governor to take all necessary steps under existing laws and issue all necessary orders to bring about the immediate withdrawal from Iraq of all Massachusetts National Guard troops subject to his authority and their return to or retention within Massachusetts.
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/filelibrary/petition0503sum.rtf (.rtf format)

____________________________________________

2.) ballot initiative #05-04 reads as follows:

An Act To Bring Our Troops Home
Be It Enacted By The People And By Their Authority:

SECTION 1. The governor shall take all necessary steps under G.L. c. 33, s. 39 and all other provisions of law or the Constitution and issue all necessary orders to bring about the immediate withdrawal of all Massachusetts National Guard troops subject to his authority from Iraq and their return to, or retention within, the Commonwealth.

SECTION 2. Chapter 33 of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out Section 39 in its entirety and inserting in place thereof the following:

Section 39. Use of militia outside the commonwealth

Except as authorized by law enacted by the General Court upon recommendation of the governor, no unit of the armed forces of the commonwealth shall be ordered without the limits of the commonwealth or leave the commonwealth for any period or purpose whatever, with military property of the United States or of the commonwealth in its possession or use.
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/filelibrary/petition05-04.rtf (.rtf format)

And, the Commonwealth in layman's language "summarizes" ballot initiative #05-04 as:

SUMMARY OF NO. 05-04
This proposed law would require the Governor to take all necessary steps under existing laws and issue all necessary orders to bring about the immediate withdrawal from Iraq of all Massachusetts National Guard troops subject to his authority and their return to or retention within Massachusetts.

The proposed law would also prohibit Massachusetts National Guard troops from being sent outside Massachusetts unless authorized by a law recommended by the Governor and passed by the state Legislature. The proposed law would replace an existing law under which such troops may be sent outside of Massachusetts by order of the Governor or with his consent.
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/filelibrary/petition0504sum.rtf

.

.
Apparently, both ballot initiative #05-03 and #05-04 were certified by the state Attorney General. The next step is to obtain the necessary number of signatures for each of these ballot initiatives. I believe Harold Hubschman and those who back him have a hard row to hoe for the signatures and for a favorable vote on either of his initiatives.

.

[unhappycamper]

4. I emailed Mr. Hubschman earlier this morning about your concerns.

I asked him to reply to your concerns. Nothing back from him yet....

[unhappycamper]

5. self-delete

[Ian David]

7. Kicked, nominated, forwarded via email en masse. n/t

[paineinthearse]

8. You would

I did, too.

Those crazy Brookline people!

[paineinthearse]

9. Questions

When is the next state-wide election, November 2006? Or sooner?

Presuming it passes when Mitt the Shit is still governor, is it binding or can he ignore it?

[TaleWgnDg]

12. Find all . . . here . . .

.
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=1246

[paineinthearse]

13. Have steps 1 & 2 been completed?

(1) the initiative measure is signed by ten voters and submitted to the Attorney General by the first Wednesday in August (August 3, 2005);
(2) the Attorney General determines (usually by the first Wednesday in September, i.e., September 7, 2005) whether the measure meets the requirements of amend. art. 48;
(3) if certified by the Attorney General, the measure is filed with the Secretary of State;

more...

If "no", we've missed the boat, and sponsorship by a Rep or Senator would be required. I'm friendly with a very progressive rep and senator, if that would help.

[TaleWgnDg]

14. paineinthearse . . .

.
Please see my post #11 in this DU thread. Note that I've been saying all along that there has been confusion in this DU thread cause by facts that were omitted. The facts not reported in this DU thread were Harold Hubschman brought forward TWO SEPARATE and DISTINCT petitions (ballot initiatives) and requested BOTH to be certified by Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly. This omission has caused much confusion.

To clarify the situation, I checked out Reilly's website. I then posted BOTH ballot initiatives in my post #11 in this DU thread. The first ballot initiative of Harold Hubschman is ballot initiative #05-03 (see my post #11). The second ballot initiative of Harold Hubschman is ballot initiative #05-04 (see my post #11).

As you will see on Reilly's website http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=2144 both Hubschman's ballot initiatives #05-03 and #05-04 were certified by Reilly. For the next steps, please see Reilly's website http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=1246 .
.

[paineinthearse]

15. What post number was that again?

SHEESH, sorry I missed it. I'll read #11 now!