Increasing the Federal Govt Power at the expense of the States?

The United States National Guard is a component of the US Army (the Army National Guard) and the US Air Force (Air National Guard).

However in each of the 50 states of the US, they maintain their own military forces (New York National Guard, New Jersey, Texas, etc.). These forces are federaly recognised, but are separate from the National Guard and are not meant to be federalised, but rather service the state exclusively, especially when the National Guard is deployed and unavailable.

As for being used by the government, National Guard units can be mobilised at any time by presidential order to supplement regular armed forces, and upon declaration of a state of emergency by the governor of the state in which they serve. Unlike Army Reserve members, National Guard members cannot be mobilised individually, but only as part of their respective units.

Note that these state defense forces are under the command of the governor, as these forces are distinct from the National Guard in tht they are not federal entities. At the present time, approx 25 states, in addition to Puerto Rico, currently have active State Defense Forces, each with different levels of activity, state support, and strength. They generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions.

Ok, that's the background. Now it seems there is a provision in the House-passed defense authorisation bill that would end the historic link between the states and their Guard units. It would give the President authority to take over National Guard troops in case of natural disaster or homeland security threats.

Now, it does make sense to most people. The President, in case of a national emergency, needs to take certain steps to protect the country from attack. Now what's wrong with that? Well, the legislation, for one thing, would remove the state Governor's command authority on the use of his/her forces. In the past, the President would usually ask the Governor of such a state to activate the Guard in case of a domestic crisis or something similar of that nature. Historically, governors have maintained control of the National Guard during domestic deployments because it gives them more flexibility in how to rotate them out of active duty, the length of time needed, level of training, and so forth. This would manage the strain on the force.

Some people would note that any governor may not know what is at stake, and the President may have more information to make the right decision. Possibly, but then it is also essential for the federal government to notify their state governor of any such emergency, and the reasons for it.

Why should the federal government take over the state militias? We got an active US army, air force, and navy right? This is true, but in light of events in Iraq and Afghanistan, and everywhere else, active US forces, in terms of equipment and manpower, have reached the breaking point, and the only choice left is to use the Army/Air National Guard and the state militias. Arnold Punaro, chairman of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, states that moves to deploy the National Guard "underscores again how operational our Guard and reserves are. They're an operational force, not a strategic force."

Recently, at the National Governors Association, the chairman, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R), brought up the provision in the House defense bill at a closed door luncheon. He 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 Governor Tom Vilsack, 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."

Huckabee and Vice Chairman, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (D), had planned to ask all the governors at the session to sign a letter of protest aimed at killing the provision when House and Senate conferees meet next month on the bill.

According to Vilsack, the provision was tucked into the House version without notice to the states. I am trying to find out whether this is true or not, but it would seem disrespectful for the federal government not to inform the states that they are taking their power away.

Calls to the White House National Security Council were not returned. Obviously. They might have been hoping that no one would noticed such a provision in a multi-hundred page legislation document.

Huckabee believes that Congress and the administration -- run by fellow Republicans -- have moved far from what he called the "traditional states' rights position" of conservatives. Is it possible that Republicans are bent on consolidating their strangehold on the entire government and feel that states may try to rein them in? There is a thing called "checks and balances" and it seems there are certain particular people in the government that are bent on using the fear of "terrorist attacks" and other "emergencies" to throw all those "limitations" out of the window.

If the federal government is so worried about manpower and domestic emergencies, it should act to increase the size of our active military forces and give more flexibility to the states. In this case, there has been no evidence that would require this extreme course of action. If this was a reaction to Katrina, that was an isolated incident, and it is the opinion of this blogger that it is just an attempt to use that event to further certain agendas in the government for more power.

Washington Post - Governors Wary of Change on Troops