Governors Object to Bush's National Guard Plan
By ROBERT TANNER, AP


CHARLESTON, S.C. (Aug. 6) - 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."


------------------------------------------------------------

Personally I agree with this :

"The idea of federalizing yet another function of government in America is a, the wrong direction, and b, counterproductive,"

To take away the powers that are given to a state and instead have the federal government make those decisions is, in my opinion, a very dangerous thing and moves like that can and eventually will give the federal government way too much power and say over the states. To give away a little state power here and a little state power there could eventually lead to a form of communisim. The governmental system distinguishing powers between the states themselves and the feds were set up for a good reason.

And I also agree with this, but cannot accept who it is coming from :

"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."



Her saying this really gets me. ESPECIALLY the very LAST line. Had a governor like Pataki, who stepped up and did what he had to do to get federal assitance on 9/11 made this statement, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But for someone like Blanco to make this statement is very amusing, and at the same time very sickening. Yeah, she really made some quick and speedy decisions before and during the hurricane. :rolleyes:


Don Cardi

Agreed DC, these kind of incidents generally impact in a localized fashion, and should be dealt with as such. Clearly another attempt to centralize power, a growing trend not only in the US but also here in Europe. Having said that, a tragedy that affects a nation should create some reaction from Federal government and GWB's own reaction to the disaster does not compare favourably to that of the state authorities.

Where the fuck have you been, you southern wanker? I've missed you. Good to see you back.

I agree, DC. It's been given to the states, let them keep it. The executive branch has their power, and they need to stop becoming more uncontrollable (and using "security" as their reasoning).

Lost my password, email expired, back to associate level Missed debating international politics with Americans , thought it would be best to re-appear on a thread where I'm agreeing with DC

I`m a bit confused with terms here. Isn`t federalizing a function another word for giving it to the states?

Maybe they use the word differently in every country, but I know that when Belgium turned from a unitar country into a federalized country during the `80s and `90s, it was called federalization, or, giving power to the different territories.

In this case, Enzo, it means taking the power away from the States (where it currently resides) and giving it to the national/central (federal) government, as opposed to being in the hands of each individual state. Hence, "federalization."

Enzo, I understand your confusion.
The U.S. Army "belongs to" the Federal government, and is commanded by the President. "National Guards" are like militias--they are armed forces within individual states of the US that are trained and equipped like the U.S. Army, and wear the same uniforms. But they are normally commanded by the Governors of individual states, and used for state and local emergencies. They represent a long tradition of "citizen armies"--private citizens who are part-time soldiers, who train and drill on weekends and during summers--but who can be called to action when needed. Usually, a Governor will "call out" (activate) the National Guard during emergencies such as floods, hurricanes, riots, etc. National Guards are not the Governors' "private armies"--they are more like a state and local military resource.

However, the President of the US can activate National Guard units with the consent of states' governors. US law says the following about how the President can federalize the National Guard:


Whenever—
(1) the United States, or any of the Territories, Commonwealths, or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States [emphasis added] or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

(I copied this from a Cornell University site.)

One of America's greatest strengths is our system of "checks and balances" between federal, state and local power. The provision of US law that requires the President of the US to get Governors' approval before federalizing various National Guards is one of the most important "checks and balances." Permitting the President to federalize the national guard removes one of those safeguards and can lead to abuses of power.

Yeah I know, it`s pure logic that federalization means giving power to the federal government, but it`s just that in my country we use federalization when we talk about giving power to the different states. I thought everyone uses this unlogical choice of words. Guess it`s only my banana republic.

Turnbull - Thanks!

Yeah I know, it`s pure logic that federalization means giving power to the federal government, but it`s just that in my country we use federalization when we talk about giving power to the different states. I thought everyone uses this unlogical choice of words. Guess it`s only my banana republic.

Turnbull - Thanks! [/b][/quote]Enzo, I don't think you're wrong about the use of "federalization" in the Belgian context you described. One generic definition of a "federal" system is that it's a political system of sharing powers among a central (federal) government and other entities, like states, counties and cities. As you described it earlier, Belgium changed its political structure to share power between the central government and various "states" (could this mean French, Dutch and Flemish-speaking regions?). Therefore, since "federalization" was new, perhaps it applied the way you described it. In the article Don Cardi cited, "federalizing" the National Guards really means calling the National Guards into the service of the Federal government (Washington) instead of duties to the individual states. "Nationalizing" the National Guard would be another (perhaps better) description.

Ow, so the definition of federalization only depends on who had the power first. Right. Thanks again!

Uhm, not really, but if you want to know these kind of things, maybe try Wikipedia.

I normally don't have a problem with Bush's ideas except this one. Like what has been said already this just gives the federal government too much power.


Like DC stated. I find this line very funny coming from Kathleen Blanco, considering her speediness in making decisions. :rolleyes: