This basically is an extension of this thread, but figured you'd still be interested given that it's getting national headlines.

August 6, 2006
Governors Object to Bush's Guard Plan
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:27 a.m. ET

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) -- The nation's governors are closing ranks in opposition to a proposal in Congress that would let the president take control of the National Guard in emergencies without consent of governors.

The idea, spurred by the destruction and chaos that followed Hurricane Katrina's landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi, is part of a House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act. It has not yet been agreed to by the Senate.

The measure would remove the currently required consent of governors for the federalization of the Guard, which is shared between the individual states and the federal government.

''Federalization just for the sake of federalization makes no sense,'' said Gov. Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, a Democrat who had rough relations with the Bush administration after the disaster last year. ''You don't need federalization to get federal troops. ... Just making quick decisions can make things happen.''

Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a Republican, said ''a whole bunch of governors'' were opposed to the idea after the proposed change was brought up in a private lunch meeting.

Some two dozen governors met in Charleston for three days of discussions at the annual summer gathering of the National Governors Association. The association's leaders sent a formal letter of opposition to House leaders last week.

The language in the House measure would let the president take control in case of ''a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe,'' according to the NGA.

''The idea of federalizing yet another function of government in America is a, the wrong direction, and b, counterproductive,'' Sanford said. ''The system has worked quite well, notwithstanding what went wrong with Katrina.''

Thoughts? I know I personally would be against automatic federalization of Guard troops, that defeats the whole purpose of the Guard.

well honestly, i think in today's military there needs to be a major restructuring of how the reserves and NG are postured. a lot of it will do with $$ and deployments.

I think its a horrible idea. Essentially it gives the president the power to control the National Guard, the very counterbalance the constitution provided to offset a dictatorial Federal Government. "In emergencies" is also pretty vague, does that mean Iraq is an emergency? The Administration tries to use Katrina as an example, but Katrina's cleanup fail to explain of why this is necessary. The mistakes made was caused by incompetant bureaucratic bungling. FEMA had plenty of resources, it just didnt have anything resembling capable leadership. I dont believe giving the president any additional powers would change that in any way.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I think its a horrible idea. Essentially it gives the president the power to control the National Guard, the very counterbalance the constitution provided to offset a dictatorial Federal Government. "In emergencies" is also pretty vague, does that mean Iraq is an emergency? The Administration tries to use Katrina as an example, but Katrina's cleanup of why this is necessary. But the mistakes made was caused by incompetant bureaucratic bungling. FEMA had plenty of resources, it just didnt have anything resembling capable leadership. I dont believe giving the president any additional powers would change that in any way.

MM
I completely agree with you on this one. I can just see King George activating the Guard because someone stole his strawberries. (Remember the movie where the Captain of the ship cancelled all liberty). Would you really like to see GW with that kind of power?

By placing the power in the hands of the President instead of the Governors, the check and balance of having to receive Governor consent prior to activation for Federal Government "emergencies", would be non-existent. The President has enough power (active military), giving him more could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

As far as real emergencies is concerned, if the bureaucrats can get their thumbs out of their nether regions we won't see the kinds of problems that were prevalent prior to/during/after hurricane Katrina.

No, no, no, a thousand times no. The President should always go through a Governor of a State for NG help. Pretty soon, a President will be able to leave the Country defenseless if that happened. In most cases, Governors will work together in emergencies without any help from the Feds.

Chief

I believe that was "The Caine Mutiny" with Humphrey Bogart.

I'm surprised that nobody else is screaming foul on this. Where is the GOP? They are the ones who are always screaming their heads off about State's rights. If this isn't an infrigement on States rights, I'm not sure what is. I also wonder about the Constitutionality of such a power, this seem like a total usurption of the 2nd Amendment.

2nd Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Putting the forces of State Security under the hands of the president (and espically this current one) would imped the states ability to defend itself. How is that NOT unconstitutional?

The kicker will probably be the federal money given to the NG. As it is, I can see the feds extort federalization out of the NG in exchange for money. No federalization, no fed money, no fancy toys. The irony: the feds (big business) using capitalism against the States (small business). Only in America.

I wouldn't trust Blanco to make decisions with the National Guard- that's the reason the ONG shot out of New Orleans en masse. I watched a mile long column of uparmored HMMWVs and 5-ton trucks rolling through Alexandria last year from the ONG. From what I understand, it's because of the refusal of either Blanco or anothe rgovernmental power refusing to supplant their income from the relief with hazard pay.

The president is still a republican right? I thought republicans had a commitment to state's rights and reducing federal control of state affairs. What the hell are they doing in that congress?

Originally Posted by WarMachine

The president is still a republican right? I thought republicans had a commitment to state's rights and reducing federal control of state affairs. What the hell are they doing in that congress?

Evidently King George doesn't seem to recognize states rights very well. You don't suppose he is trying to set up a dynasty do you? After all, his brothers are still in the running - they haven't served as President of the United States yet.