Az Gov sends more Nat'l Guard to protect citizens & border

[bg]

I'll give it to her, she's standing up and trying to take care of
business. Sure wish the President would get a clue regarding this
infestition. Opps invasion. >
http://www.yahoo.com/s/277843

PHOENIX - Gov. Janet Napolitano on Wednesday ordered more National Guardsmen posted at the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigrants and curb related crimes.
ADVERTISEMENT

National Guard troops have worked at the border since 1988, but Napolitano signed an order authorizing commanders to station an unspecified number of additional soldiers there to help federal agents.

[The Rabbi]

Talk about grandstanding for a constituency.  Is she up for re-election?

[Moondoggie]

Yes she's up for re-election.

It's all for show...Phoenix is still a "Sanctuary City".

[Antibubba]

Not to get off-track, but who has ultimate authority over each state's National Guard?  Is it the Governor of that state, or the President?  Do Governors routinely grant the President control of the NG in a time of war, or can the President simply bypass a Governor's wishes?

[bg]

Oh my..Had no idea she was up for re-election. I actully thought
she might be doing this because she does care about this issue.
She might, but now that it's been mentioned, she might be
more focused on ballot box.

Yep, I found throwing a hook in the water doesn't get many
catfish. Put a pc of Velveeta cheese on it and it does a whole
lot better job of catching em..Guess the same might be said
of the above. Thanks for the heads-up.

[The Rabbi]

Not to get off-track, but who has ultimate authority over each state's National Guard?  Is it the Governor of that state, or the President?  Do Governors routinely grant the President control of the NG in a time of war, or can the President simply bypass a Governor's wishes?

The governors have authority over the National Guard.  The President can order them federalized and brought under his control.
When George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door he was surrounded by National Guard troops under his command.  The next day when Johnson federalized them those same troops escorted black students to the school.  Strange but a good example of troop discipline.

[Standing Wolf]

Sending the National Guard to the nation's borders is a good thing. Sending the National Guard to the nation's borders for shameless political gain is despicable.

[RevDisk]

Not to get off-track, but who has ultimate authority over each state's National Guard?  Is it the Governor of that state, or the President?  Do Governors routinely grant the President control of the NG in a time of war, or can the President simply bypass a Governor's wishes?

There's no real answer.  Technically, the governor.  However, under certain circumstances, the President can federalize the NG.  During times of war or emergency, the governor can loan control of the NG to federal control.   The question of the ability of the governor's right to veto NG federalization is...   kinda untested.   Let's hope it stays that way.  

Article I, Section 8; Clause 15 allows Congress to call up a militia, which is not the same thing.  Let me be very clear, the NG is not a militia.  It is a component to the US Army.  Sigh, some gun grabbers do not seem to understand this.   See The National Defense Act (1916) and National Guard Mobilization Act (1933).


Thankfully, there have been very few disagreements over federalization of NG soldiers.   Even if the federales succeeded, compliance by said soldiers might not be exactly taken for granted.  

The governors have authority over the National Guard.  The President can order them federalized and brought under his control.
When George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door he was surrounded by National Guard troops under his command.  The next day when Johnson federalized them those same troops escorted black students to the school.  Strange but a good example of troop discipline.

Actually, I believe Vivian Malone and James Hood were escorted to the school by the National Guard even as he was standing in the schoolhouse door.  I believe it was the police that was standing beside George Wallace.

Sending the National Guard to the nation's borders is a good thing. Sending the National Guard to the nation's borders for shameless political gain is despicable.

If fear of not being re-elected gets the job done, I'm all for it.   That kinda is the point of the whole election thing.  I'm more interested in what happens immediately after election day.  Either way, more troops on the border is a good thing.

[Lennyjoe]

She's sending them to beef up ports of entry.  Unfortunately, that's not where they're needed.  They need to be out patrolling the desert where 90% of the illegals are crossing.

[El Tejon]

Just part of the shakedown of the federal treasury by regional governments.  I anticipate calls in Congress for more money to states such as Texas, Arizona and California to help fight this "problem" with more and more "programs".

Rev, in the late '80s the feds and (some) states that were pro-Communist politically argued about who had the ultimate authority over the National Guards as these Leftists govs did not want to send their states' NGs to Central America.  The Supremes decided the case in 1990, 9-0, that the ultimate authority has always been with the feds.

[El Tejon]

Rev, sorry, forgot the citation.  Phone rang, one of those days.

Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).

[RevDisk]

Just part of the shakedown of the federal treasury by regional governments.  I anticipate calls in Congress for more money to states such as Texas, Arizona and California to help fight this "problem" with more and more "programs".

Rev, in the late '80s the feds and (some) states that were pro-Communist politically argued about who had the ultimate authority over the National Guards as these Leftists govs did not want to send their states' NGs to Central America.  The Supremes decided the case in 1990, 9-0, that the ultimate authority has always been with the feds.

I'm somehow not surprised at the federal Supreme Court argued that the federals control the NG.  Appreciate the citation, thanks.  I'll dig up a copy and read.  

I'd love to read how the federales justify sending the National Guard to Central America against their governor's, and to an extent the people of said state, wishes.   Unlike the Presidential vote, governors are directly elected.   If a governor has been elected multiple times (I haven't researched the gov's you cited yet, but I will), I'd have to say he or she represents the people of his/her state enough that the largest chunk of the population generally agrees with his/her actions.


I sincerely doubt the federales really want to piss off the guvs too much.   This ain't like the old days when the Guard was a joke.  I've worked with dozens of NG units with only a handful of troops without combat patches.   Finding NG soldiers without multiple combat tours (or are about to have multiple tours) is getting pretty rare.   Sure, the NG is being stripped down to the bone equipment wise.   Dangerously so as Katrina showed.   Don't get me started on the criminal lack of tactical radios, we're over 40,000 radios short of minimal requirements.   That's the number we'll admit, the real number is much higher.  I can't tell ya how many warehouses, armories, motor pools, etc I gutted for radios to send to Iraq/Afghanistan.   For a couple weeks straight, I spent all day every day yanking 'em as fast as I could.  We only stopped because there were literally none to be found.  I swear, units reacted to me like the gestapo was kicking in the door.  Ve know you havink tacsats!  Ve havink vays of makink you talk!  Show ve ze property books!   Schnell!   Geben Sie mir die taktischeradios und die tacsats, jetzt!  Err, sorry

Hell, I even gave up my stash of vintage radios that weren't on the property books anymore.   Yea, yea, the AN/PRC-77 is a piece of junk, but it's dead reliable.   No FAIL 5 for that sucker.  Promises of jitters and bitters, which I frankly don't believe.   Grumble, grumble.   Err, sorry to break into a bit of a rant.


I mean, it's fun to discuss over beers, but an outfront confrontation between the guvs and the federales ain't gonna happen.   The guvs will whine, the federales with bribe them with some shiney new toys or some state grants, and some compromise will be worked out.

[El Tejon]

Rev, happens all the time.  Outright confrontations between guvs and the feds have happened multiple times in the history of the USA, e.g. 1861 drive to keep slavery, post-1865 drive to continue to deny Blacks their Civil Rights which resulted in Reconstruction and then the Civil Rights Act of 1964, numerous funding issues (unfunded mandates), environmental regs, and use of the NG, inter alia.  A glance of well-known Supreme Court decisions will verify that conflicts between the states and the federal government happen regularly.

The Court held that the NG, from its inception, was part of the federal army, not any state militia.  If the President wants them to go to Central America for training, off the NG goes.  It matters not what the people of that State wish.

The decision cited is an important one to the Second Amendment in that the anti-civil rights lobby has wrongly argued that the NG is part of some "militia" that Madison was referencing.  That argument went up in smoke, 9 to 0.

[RevDisk]

Rev, happens all the time.  Outright confrontations between guvs and the feds have happened multiple times in the history of the USA, e.g. 1861 drive to keep slavery, post-1865 drive to continue to deny Blacks their Civil Rights which resulted in Reconstruction and then the Civil Rights Act of 1964, numerous funding issues (unfunded mandates), environmental regs, and use of the NG, inter alia.  A glance of well-known Supreme Court decisions will verify that conflicts between the states and the federal government happen regularly.

Er, poor choice of wording, I suppose.  By "outfront confrontation" I mean having the guv telling his soldiers not to follow orders from the federales, come hell or high water, and then start passing out live ammo.  

The Court held that the NG, from its inception, was part of the federal army, not any state militia.  If the President wants them to go to Central America for training, off the NG goes.  It matters not what the people of that State wish.

The decision cited is an important one to the Second Amendment in that the anti-civil rights lobby has wrongly argued that the NG is part of some "militia" that Madison was referencing.  That argument went up in smoke, 9 to 0.

The Court 's rulings are not always exactly spot on.   Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 being a classic case.   Heck, the Court has overruled itself many times.   Expecting the federales to decide they don't have the highest authority is like expecting water to flow uphill.   But yea, thankfully they were able to conclude the obvious re defining 'militia'.

Indeed, the NG is a component of the US Army with a dual chain of command.   I never figured out how the gun grabbers ever concluded that the NG was a militia.   Some units claim the heritage of decending from various militia units that date back to before the US existed, but it's mostly just for posterity's sake.

[El Tejon]

The fact pattern you described was attempted in the South during the '50s and '60s of the 20th Century and carried forward during the '60s of the 19th Century.

The Supreme Court has in numerous decisions held that it is not the highest authority, e.g. most prominently in Bush v. Gore, as the decision is a political question or a decision that must be resolved at the state level.

The argument that the NG equated to the militia therefore the RKBA is a government, not individual right, was advanced by Robert Sherrill in his book "Saturday Night Special" in the late '60s.