Judge favors Pennsylvania in base closure ruling

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The Pentagon lacks the authority to close a Pennsylvania Air National Guard unit without the governor's approval, a federal judge ruled Friday.

In a case that could affect National Guard units nationwide, Gov. Ed Rendell said the Pentagon wrongly proposed trimming the state's Air National Guard without his consent.

Justice Department lawyers argued that the Base Realignment and Closure Act supersedes a federal law requiring gubernatorial consent.

The part of the Defense Department report "that recommends deactivation of the 111th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard is null and void," Judge John R. Padova ruled.

The 111th Fighter Wing at the Willow Grove Naval Air Station employs more than 1,000 people and represents one-fourth of the state's Air National Guard.

The nine-member Base Closure and Realignment Commission still hasn't voted on Willow Grove's fate. The commission was expected to vote Friday on the recommendation to close Willow Grove, which is also home to Air Force and Navy reserves and other military units.

The governor commands the unit's activities 90% of the time, as it responds to floods, errant planes and other emergencies, Rendell said in his lawsuit against the federal government. Federal officials command the Guard only when it is activated for missions such as the war in Iraq, he said.

Several other states have filed, or are considering, similar lawsuits.

CNN

The Pentagon can't have it both ways. Can't make the state responsible and then decide that they are responsible when it suits them. The governor is in charge because he/she knows how best to utilize the Guard for its state mission which up until quite recently has been all there ever was for years and years. Having the Federal government step in and change things as they like without regard to the Guard's state mission is beyond inconsiderate - it's wrongly curtailing state's rights. I'm glad the judge saw it that way.

I agree

The 2nd amendment allows for the creation of a State militia or National Guard as its now called. What power does the constitution have that gives the Federal Government the right close militia bases. Answer: none.
The militia as the founding fathers intended are supposed to be States protectors against Federal tyranny and are therefore answerable to the govonor. To that end, I wonder could/would happen if a governor refused to release the National Guard to Federal Control. For example, what if Mitt Romney decided he didnt want to send the Mass national guard to Iraq.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

To that end, I wonder could/would happen if a governor refused to release the National Guard to Federal Control. For example, what if Mitt Romney decided he didnt want to send the Mass national guard to Iraq.

You don't have a choice there. If a National Guard unit is Federalized then the DoD's authority is the only one.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I agree

The 2nd amendment allows for the creation of a State militia or National Guard as its now called. What power does the constitution have that gives the Federal Government the right close militia bases. Answer: none.
The militia as the founding fathers intended are supposed to be States protectors against Federal tyranny and are therefore answerable to the govonor. To that end, I wonder could/would happen if a governor refused to release the National Guard to Federal Control. For example, what if Mitt Romney decided he didnt want to send the Mass national guard to Iraq.

If the base, property, and equipment is federally owned then logic follows that they have every right.
If, on the other hand, it is owned by the state then of course it is up to the state.

Massachusetts Attorney General Riley has a similar suit re: Otis Air National Guard Base & the 102nd Fighter Wing.