What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Just When I Start Feeling Better About the Administration...

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I come across this. Links at site. Well even Bully has to be right once in awhile:

http://volokh.powerblogs.com/archives/archive_2006_08_06-2006_08_12.shtml#1155016617
[Ilya Somin, August 8, 2006 at 1:56am] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Bush v. Federalism (Again) - Expanding Presidential Power Over the National Guard:

Both Republican and Democratic Governors are opposing a provision in a Bush Administration-supported appropriations bill that would greatly expand presidential power over the National Guard, as the Washington Post explains here:

The nation's governors on Saturday launched a bipartisan drive to block a move to expand the president's authority to take over National Guard troops in case of natural disaster or homeland security threats.

At a closed-door luncheon on the opening day of the annual summer meeting of the National Governors Association, the chairman, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), told colleagues that a provision in the House-passed defense authorization bill would end the historic link between the states and their Guard units.

Huckabee and the association's vice chairman, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D), plan to ask all the governors at the session to sign a letter of protest Sunday aimed at killing the provision when House and Senate conferees meet next month on the bill.

Huckabee told reporters that the move to shift control of the Guard to the president during national emergencies "violates 200 years of American history" and is symptomatic of a larger federal effort to make states no more than "satellites of the national government."

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, the senior Democrat, called the proposal "one step away from a complete takeover of the National Guard, the end of the Guard as a dual-function force that can respond to both state and national needs....."

Under the provision, the president would have authority to take control of the Guard in case of "a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident or catastrophe" in the United States.

Huckabee said he does not know if President Bush wants that authority, but said "the administration is supporting this."

For the text of the National Governors' Association official letter to Congress opposing this provision, see here.

As I have pointed out in my forthcoming article on the Raich medical marijuana decision, the Bush Administration has promoted numerous initiatives to expand federal power at the expense of the states, including in the No Child Left Behind Act, the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Terri Schiavo case, assisted suicide, medical marijuana, and other policies. This has caused a number of liberal academics, pundits, and politicians (see the article for cites) to rethink their traditional support for a high degree of political centralization. The opposition of liberal Democratic governors to Bush's plan to expand federal control of the National Guard is an extension of the trend.

There are two key questions about the Administration-supported plan to expand federal authority over the National Guard: is it constitutional, and is it a good policy?

The first question is easier to answer. Under Gonzales v. Raich, Congress' constitutional power to regulate "Commerce . . .among the several States" has been interpreted to include virtually any activity that has even a remote connection to or effect on the national economy (detailed explanation in my article linked above). The National Guard surely has substantial economic effects, so Congress has the right to regulate it under Raich.

What if, however, you believe as I do that Raich was wrongly decided? Congress probably still has the power to enact this legislation, but the answer is less clear. Article I, Section 8, Cl. 15 of the Constitution gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Section 8 Clause 16 gives Congress the power "To provide . . . for governing such part of the [militia] as may be employed in the service of the United States," which presumably includes the power to put them under presidential control.

Dealing with a "serious natural or manmade disaster, accident or catastrophe" does not count as suppressing insurrections or repelling invasions. It often will, however, involve "execut[ing] the laws of the union," as any "serious" disaster is likely to be accompanied by lawlessness of the type that we saw last year during Hurricane Katrina. To be sure, most of the crimes that occur in the wake of natural disasters are likely to be state rather than federal offenses (e.g. - the looting and assault that occurred in the first few days after Katrina). Enforcing these laws does not count as "executing the laws of the union," which refers to federal law. In practice, however, a mass outbreak of lawlessness over a wide area is likely to involve violations of federal law as well as state law. For example, looters might damage federal property, interfere with the delivery of the U.S. Mail, and so forth. Thus, I tentatively conclude that the proposed National Guard bill is likely to be Constitutional, at least as applied to most real-world "serious natural or manmade disasters."

Is it, therefore a good idea? On that score, I have serious doubts. Presidential control over National Guard units engaged in combat makes good sense in the case of an attack by a foreign enemy, since it is important for all our forces to be under a unified command. As the text of the Constitution suggests, it also makes good sense in the case of large-scale "insurrections," especially if local authorities actually support the rebellion (as during the Civil War) or if they are using the National Guard to obstruct the enforcement of federal law (as when John F. Kennedy nationalized the Alabama Guard to prevent Governor George Wallace from using it to obstruct desegregation). Finally, presidential control may be preferable to state control in cases where a natural disaster effects a large number of different states simultaneously; if state governors are left in control in such a situation, each will prefer to keep his Guard troops in his own state rather than allocate them to where they may be most needed.

In the case of a disaster that primarily affects just one state, or a small number of neighboring states, however, the case for presidential control is much weaker. State governors have stronger incentives to address such local disasters effectively than the president does and they are likely to be more familiar with local conditions. Mishandling a major natural disaster within his own state will be politically very costly to a governor, while similar mistakes will have much less impact on the president's political career, since most of his constituents will not be affected, and in any event the public judges presidents on a much wider range of issues than governors.

Things are a bit more complicated if the disaster affects 2 or 3 neighboring states rather than just one. However, in such cases neighboring state governments will have strong incentives to make joint plans ahead of time in order to optimize the use of their resources. Unlike in cases where a large number of states are involved, transaction costs and negotiation costs are likely to be relatively low, or at least no higher than those imposed by federal control.

A final troubling aspect of the National Guard provision before Congress is that it seems to leave it up to the president himself to decide what counts as a sufficiently "serious" disaster to justify federalizing the Guard. This makes it all too easy for the president to declare the existence of a "disaster" on the basis of flimsy evidence and then take control of Guard units in order to punish state governments who oppose his political agenda. To be clear, the danger is not that the President would use the Guard to attack state governments militarily, but that he could use control of the Guard as a political weapon in order to force states to adhere to his agenda or risk losing control of their Guard units.

If you are a liberal Democrat, would you really want President Bush to have this power? If you are a conservative Republican who believes that Bush wouldn't abuse such authority, ask yourself how you would feel about Hillary Clinton having the same power if she gets elected president in 2008.

For these reasons, I think that the measure goes too far, even though it is probably constitutional. It is also unfortunate that it is part of a broader pattern of subordinating federalism concerns to advance the Administration's political agenda. In this case, unlike most of the others, Bush's policy is under attack from many in his own party, and hopefully that will persuade him to desist.

UPDATE: Some commenters claim that the National Guard is not part of the state "militia" referred to in Article I, Sect. 8, Cl. 15-16 of the Constitution and is a purely national armed force subject to unlimited federal control. I don't think that this correct. In Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 339 (1990), the Supreme Court recognized that National Guard units "maintain an identity as . . . part of the militia described in Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution." For a detailed discussion of the legal status of the Guard, see here.

UPDATE #2: I fully recognize that part of the motivation for this proposal is the reality of state and local government failure in Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina. I have blogged about some of those failures here. On the other hand, President Bush and the federal government also made numerous mistakes. Moreover, state and local officials in Mississippi (which was also hit hard by Katrina) seem to have performed reasonably well (see, e.g., here and here). While there was plenty of blame to go around during the Katrina disaster, it does not prove that federal control of the Guard during emergencies is preferable as a general rule
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Can't say as I agree with this proposal at all. The Fed already has all the authority they need to Federalize Guard units during a time of war.

And I definitely don't agree with the state relinquishing any more power to the Fed.

These guys sound like libs.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Can't say as I agree with this proposal at all. The Fed already has all the authority they need to Federalize Guard units during a time of war.

And I definitely don't agree with the state relinquishing any more power to the Fed.

These guys sound like libs.
I've had problems with NCLB, Schiavo, and other grabs at states powers. Like I said, Bully often posts about the power grabs, I disagree with him on the signing bills, but this is not right.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I've had problems with NCLB, Schiavo, and other grabs at states powers. Like I said, Bully often posts about the power grabs, I disagree with him on the signing bills, but this is not right.

Geez .... don't get HIM wound up thinking anyone agrees with him!:laugh:
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,128
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Thought we discussed this earlier this week but yeah its a bad proposal. BUt I cant blame the President for doing this after all the criticism after Katrina. Doesnt mean i support it.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,462
Reaction score
17,710
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Thought we discussed this earlier this week but yeah its a bad proposal. BUt I cant blame the President for doing this after all the criticism after Katrina. Doesnt mean i support it.

You mean the criticism he deserved after Katrina???

http://www.factcheck.org/article348.html

This has little to do with making the states "satellites" and everything to do with consolidation of power.
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
You mean the criticism he deserved after Katrina???

http://www.factcheck.org/article348.html

Thank you for posting yet another laugh riot from online information's equivalent of Comedy Central - factcheck.org. Here, I thought they had exposed themselves as pathetically sloppy, irrelevant whores only in the matter of the Swift Boat Vets. Thanks to you, I now see that their standards of objectivity have remained consistent, up to as recently as Sept 16, 2005. You have demonstrated to me that this organization has zero credibility on ANYTHING.

Case in point: their "timeline". While they're busy counting the words in President Bush's speeches, they offer NOT ONE SYLLABLE about the fact that he offered to federalize the entire evacuation effort very early in the going, but was met with a stony refusal from image-conscious Lousiana Democrats - not one syllable. "All the news that's politically expedient to print" - that should be factcheck.org's motto.

Please, PLEASE keep citing them in your posts, jillian. It does SO much to bolster your arguments.
 

Dr Grump

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
30,980
Reaction score
6,136
Points
1,130
Location
From the Back of Beyond
Please, PLEASE keep citing them in your posts, jillian. It does SO much to bolster your arguments.

And you just keep on offering up your patronising and belittling posts while offering up nothing in return but sarcasm and demanding of others that which you rarely show yourself....;)
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
And you just keep on offering up your patronising and belittling posts while offering up nothing in return but sarcasm and demanding of others that which you rarely show yourself....;)

Even if true, it would be better than offering up distortions, half-truths, and bullshit.

:)
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top