States Consider Calling Back National Guards from Iraq

[madmag]

How do they propose getting their troops back?

That's it in a nutshell. Like many here I served in the military, and I can tell you there is only one person that can issue the order to return....and we know who that is. For a commander in Iraq, receiving an order from a Governor or court would mean nothing. It would take a constitutional amendment to change the chain of command.

BTW, from the beginning I was never in favor of this war. I think the troops should be home defending our borders.

 

[Pat H]

I think it's pretty well understood that the various National Guard units would simply not be allowed to rotate back into Iraq after having returned home post their last rotation.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I think it's pretty well understood that the various National Guard units would simply not be allowed to rotate back into Iraq after having returned home post their last rotation."

And stopping them from being rotated back would be... who?

I'm getting visions of Orval Faubus here...

Making a nice sound bite for the news, and not accomplishing ****.

 

[JuanCarlos]

And stopping them from being rotated back would be... who?

I'm getting visions of Orval Faubus here...

Making a nice sound bite for the news, and not accomplishing ****.

Pretty much. I support the grandstanding, personally, because I don't support the repeated use of National Guard units either...but when it comes down to it, any "showdown" on the issue isn't going to be pretty and the federal government will win. The best a state can hope for is to see their unit disbanded or all funding for it stopped.

 

[zukiphile]

The reason the states are legally correct this time is that the Invasion and War Against Iraq have no treaty that permitted its prosecution, making it illegal.

Art 2, sect. 1 of the COTUS does not require a treaty for an exec to take action overseas.

Moreover, your point is factually wide of the mark. There was a treaty signed at the end of Gulf I.

 

[Pat H]

Art 2, sect. 1 of the COTUS does not require a treaty for an exec to take action overseas.

That is correct, however a treaty may preclude overseas warfare, and the US government is signatory to one that does.

Moreover, your point is factually wide of the mark. There was a treaty signed at the end of Gulf I.

There was no treaty signed at the end of Gulf War One between Iraq and the US government, so that has no legal bearing on the current War Against Iraq.

The war remains unlawful under US law.

 

[zukiphile]

Quote:
Art 2, sect. 1 of the COTUS does not require a treaty for an exec to take action overseas.
That is correct, however a treaty may preclude overseas warfare, and the US government is signatory to one that does.

No US treaty prohibits the US from military action overseas.

Quote:
Moreover, your point is factually wide of the mark. There was a treaty signed at the end of Gulf I.
There was no treaty signed at the end of Gulf War One between Iraq and the US government, so that has no legal bearing on the current War Against Iraq.

The war remains unlawful under US law.

Schwartzkopf and representatives of the iraqi regime signed a treaty in 1991. IIRC, it was with a Gen. Ahmed.

We've been in Iraq for years now, and no anti-war group has been able to cobble together a passable challenge to the legality of the current effort.

 

[madmag]

I'm getting visions of Orval Faubus here

Yeah, my visions are of George Wallace having his own guard taken away and used against him by JFK. Wallace ordered the guard to be used under his (Wallace) authority and JFK promptly had them federalized and issued orders, guess who they obeyed.

The war remains unlawful under US law.

I think you are right, but that never seemed to stop any President. Only Congress can declare war. The problem is they don't really control the military.

 

[Thumper]

Schwartzkopf and representatives of the iraqi regime signed a treaty in 1991.

Not a treaty. A resolution. Resolution 687. We signed and so did Iraq. They failed to hold up their end of the agreement.

Actions performed in support of Resolution 1441 are entirely legal. I wish some folks would educate themselves before regurgitating info from fringe sources.

Congress authorized war in Iraq under Public Law No 107-203, voted on and passed in October 2002.

Those that make utterly ignorant claims are kind of fun to point and laugh at, though. Carry on.

 

[Pat H]

Gentlemen, the treaty/ceasefire was signed between the United Nations and Iraq. The US government was NOT a signatory.

Further, as most should know, the Un charter is a treaty fully ratified per the US Constitution*. That treaty makes it illegal for one member nation to invade another member nation unless certain express events occur.

None of those events were present in 2003.


*Article VI, paragraph two.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Thumper]

...and, once again, you ignore that which you cannot answer.

Further, as most should know, the Un charter is a treaty fully ratified per the US Constitution*. That treaty makes it illegal for one member nation to invade another member nation unless certain express events occur.

Completely wrong, unless you subscribe to the blatantly anti American IPO.

So, as you admit, Pat...the UN charter is a ratified, Constitutional document. Do you deny that UN Resolution 1441 was voted on and passed?

Do you also deny that Congress voted on and passed Public Law No 107-203 authorizing and funding action in Iraq?

Where on earth do you think you have a leg to stand on? Your "facts" dont stand up to even the most cursory examination.

 

[Pat H]

IPO? Initial Public Offering?

Resolution 1441 did NOT authorize invasion or other military action, that's why the Bush regime sought a Security council resolution that did so authorize such action.

The UN charter DOES expressly forbid one member nation invading another member nation, unless specific, express exceptions are met. None of those exceptions were met.

Congress violated US law in one sense in that they didn't forbid military action, but in fact they transfered enforcement of the law to the president since the law passed did not REQUIRE military action either.

That puts the illegality squarely on the shoulders of the president of the US.

The governors of the states would be well within their powers to forbid further activations of their National Guard troops based on the law.

Perpich vs. DoD, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is Constitutionally weak, narrow in its scope, and contrary to past practices relative of the respective state governments and the federal government.

The situation is ripe for states to return said power fully to the states, they should take it forthwith.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Ultimately, who does, or doesn't, for that matter, care what the United Nations approves or disapproves?

As a body, it has time and time again proven that its only functional ability is to consume massive quantities of money and give crap in return.

And it's not even good crap, capable of sustaining anything...

 

[Thumper]

I agree, Mike....so let's just look at what the US Congress voted for and passed:

Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq

 

[Pat H]

Interesting document, I've downloaded it.

It isn't legal under the Constitution since it allows presidential violation of the US law, in and of itself unConstitutional.

It's not relevant whether I, or any one else, does not like the UN and would rather not be involved with the UN.

What is relevant is that the US government signed a treaty with the UN that prohibits invasion of another member nation (except under specific express events, none of which occurred) and that the Constitution makes said treaty the law of the land and, this is the important part, binds congress and the president to obey the law, laws passed by congress notwithstanding. In other words, congress cannot pass a law in contravention to the treaty because that's unConstitutional.

It's right there, in the Constitution, as I wrote it above.

Don't like that part of the Constitution? Neither do I, but it is the law now, and the US government must obey it.

 

[toybox99615]

making a request is still a responsibility for the states

Just notifying the President and the DC leaders that the individual states feel as if they are in danger by not having their NG units at full strength (personnel and/or equipment wise) is a message. If the President and the Congress chose to ignore the letters they will be responsible for not heading the warnings.

If another major national disaster strikes and a state or states are not able to respond the citizenry will know whose at fault for the failure to be adequately prepared: Congress and the President.

 

[Thumper]

Interesting document, I've downloaded it.

This is your first exposure to this GIANT PIECE OF THE DISCUSSION?

Tell you what...there's a strong possibility that you might not be getting an unbiased view of things from your boy Llewellyn Rockwell.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"It isn't legal under the Constitution since it allows presidential violation of the US law, in and of itself unConstitutional."

Incorrect.

The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war.

Nothing in the Constitution specifically states that in order for the military to be used Congress MUST declare war.

War was never declared.

 

[Pat H]

This is your first exposure to this GIANT PIECE OF THE DISCUSSION?[/quote}Um, no, it's the first time I've downloaded the entire 1400+ page document.

I'm only too familiar with what is in it.

Lew Rockwell is impeccably honest.

 

[Pat H]

"It isn't legal under the Constitution since it allows presidential violation of the US law, in and of itself unConstitutional."

Incorrect.

The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war.

Article VI also says that it "shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.". That means that congress cannot contravene a ratified treaty by passing legislation.

A related comment. All of this illustrates just how dangerous the treaty power is, and why such treaties as the "Kyoto Accords" should never be ratified since that transfers sovereignty to foreign influence or control. NAFTA, for example, has allowed Canada to sue state governments in federal court for changing state laws to prohibit things made in Canada. MTBE was prohibited by California for use in fuels, Canada sued to block that action. NAFTA gave Canada legal standing to do so.

Nothing in the Constitution specifically states that in order for the military to be used Congress MUST declare war.

Nothing in the Constitution states that the state militia MUST respond to federal actions calling it to active duty.

War was never declared.

Very true.