Federalization of National Guard

I'm not certain that this proposal needs to be necessarily viewed as a certain threat to state's rights. America is based on finding practical solutions and not doctrinal ideology. And sometimes, Governors have their own political agenda that is not in the national interest. Should the President need to pay political favors to a Governor for refusing to cooperate with the implementation of a national policy request?
The Governor of my state has refused to allow the relocation of a small squad of jet fighters at the President's request to save money, jobs and efficiency. Now there is a deal on the table to exchange the fighters for cargo planes, yet the Governor originally used "state military defense" as the reason for the original refusal. Cargo planes are going to provide defense in the event of an attack? And the fighters will be nearby in another small New England state.
Since the Federal Gov't. is footing the bill, and the President is the "Chief", why should the Office have to kow tow to a hostile Governor?
While there are pros and cons, what's in the national interest should be the overriding determining factor of who orders the troops. A state's interest may be more local than national.
Or maybe the states should just go ahead and fund their own troops and equipment if they feel it's really necessary. After all, the Federal funding can be taken away just as easily. And why should any state that is helping to fund the guard of another state through the Federal system, be refused the assistance it deserves simply because of "politics". :)
 
Last edited:
BTW, the above mentioned case did go to court, and the Governor won the case. And both the Governor and President are Republicans. Could this Fed./State conflict be a harbinger of situations yet to come? Maybe this new proposal is Congress's response to the development, and with resources being scarce, they are trying to eliminate costly waste and inefficiency.
 
I'm not certain that this proposal needs to be necessarily viewed as a certain threat to state's rights.
Click to expand...

Federalization puts too much power into too few hands... :eek: :eek:

The threat to State's rights is not the bigger threat to fear... :cool:

It is the threat to human rights which is critical... :mad:

That is why we are so adamant about our Second Ammendment rights... because that one ammendment is the only thing standing between a "Dictatorial Government" and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

When it comes to personal human rights...NEVER GIVE AN INCH...
or you will lose the mile. ;)
 
The big hammer that the president has over the Governors is the fact that much of the funding for each state's national guard comes form the federal government. I think President Bush is overreaching a bit.
 
So, was there a problem with Eisenhower's federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to enforce the integration efforts in Little Rock?
Click to expand...

Eisenhower sent in the 101st, not the National Guard. Governor Orval Faubus sent in the National Guard to enforce segregation.
 
Is this a response to the Katrina debacle where the state and local governments proved slow and incompetent, then blamed the federal government for not stepping in regardless?

ie Nagel saying, "somebody's got to do something!" without realizing that he is that somebody.
 
Seems that way to me, Destructo.

Personally, I don't want to see the day when President Hillary tells Governor Jeb where, when, and for what purpose she is sending federal troops to my state after a hurricane.
 
Okay, DNS, I'll bite. The "National Guard" actually refers to 50 (or more? do territories have their own?) different organizations, such as the California National Guard, the Kansas National Guard, the Montana National Guard, etc. When I enlist in the Montana National Guard, I actually say a different oath than a federal soldier does, in that I swear loyalty to my state as well as the nation.

The reason it's the California National Guard, instead of the California State Guard, is because by having a state military presence across the nation, we actually help defend the nation.

The point of the various National Guards, in theory, is to provide a first-line defense of the country in case the regular Army is tied up, and to provide rapid on-scene responses for emergencies. It is (or was) not intended to be used as a federal force. If the federal government wants a state's troops, they have to ask. They can cut federal funding if the state says no, which makes it unlikely when push comes to shove that any state would do so, but the point is that the governor can.
 
I understand the President can federalize the National guard anyway. State Defense Forces or State Guards I think are the way to go. Some of them are rather poorly organized currently and some of them don't even carry guns (except CHLers). State guards are controlled exclusively by the state not the federal government.

I am against this Proposition Bush wants. Horrible. Government has too much power anyway (I thought Bush was a conservative? that's what Limbaugh and all the other Republican talking heads tell us :rolleyes: )
 
I know there are issues, but in the above court case, it was the Fed's who sent the jet fighters in the first place, but then wanted to reassign them for effciency reasons. It seems that once the state received the "jobs associated with the assignment location", the Governor thinks that the jobs and fighters should be permanently deployed here. It sounds really inefficient to waste resources that way when they could be serviced cheaper elsewhere nearby. Granted the jobs are in my state, but is it fair for the entire nation to have to subsidize the higher costs?
Maybe in this sense, "conservative" means streamlining authority for the purpose of being able to "conserve" money resources, and to eliminate red tape and admittedly, state interference.
The question is whether or not that state interference serves the national interest in the long run and is the current command structure archaic or necessary?
FWIW, my state has similiarly eliminated all vestiges of county government, zip, nada, zilch! :D
 
Last edited:
"Eisenhower sent in the 101st, not the National Guard. Governor Orval Faubus sent in the National Guard to enforce segregation."

Eisenhower did send in the 101st. He also federalized the National Guard, taking control away from Faubus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top