Governors bristle at Guard proposal

[cec]

Governors bristle at Guard proposal
By ROBERT TANNER
AP National Writer


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."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-05-17-14-55

[Woodmonkey]

"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."

This one! She was more concerned with PR and being in charge then getting essential federal help in and held things up for 24 hours while she consulted with her staff - and people suffered and/or died.

In spite of that, I don't like doing this. The Guard should stay under the control of the Governor.

[Shooterman]

Mr Eisenhower proved the President can federalize the Guard from under the governors. He did so at Little Rock.

[Woodmonkey]

Yes, but at least there's a procedure to follow. They are proposing to completely bypass the governors.

[Caldric]

Didn't Johnson federalize the troops in Alabama? Or did he just threaten to?

[Shooterman]

Originally Posted by Caldric

Didn't Johnson federalize the troops in Alabama? Or did he just threaten to?

He may have, Caldric, but the die was cast at Little Rock. Rather than risk a confrontation between the 82nd Airborne and the Arkansas NG, Ike just federalized the NG from beneath Faubus. It more or less was the final nail in the coffin of States Rights.( a misnomer, I know ) From that point on, the issue of what the states could do was pretty much a crap shoot.

[Bluehawk]

I believe that The Guard constitutes what, today, might be termed a "well regulated militia", and that as such it must come under the command of the States, according to the 10th Amendment.

HOWEVER, there does seem to be a need for SOMEONE in government other than State Governors, who may or may not be asleep at the wheel in an emergency, to call out the Guard, especially if the Guard commanders themselves put in such a request!