Posted: 5/11/2010 4:46:47 PM EDT
| I was talking to a former NM National Guardsman and he said that the Governor of any state can refuse the use of that states NG to the federal government. Is this true? |
|
Yes, the governor gets to decide if he 'consents' in the federal call up or not.
If the governor refuses to consent the president may only call up the guard for domestic operations if he invokes the Insurrection Act . In the case of declared war or national emergency the president may call up a guard unit for the emergency plus six months without governor consent. We are currently operating under a national emergency. In the case of training for more than 15 days or other duties the governor must consent. |
Hey, Ryann, it's good to see you on the board. 
From what I understand (which I lack any documentation) is that the governor has the ability to run his guard with free reign which may be contrary to federal wishes. However, it would be severely politically damaging to do so and I can never imagine a governor taking measures to that extreme. But, you never know. Nevertheless, it's good to see you around. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah a few governors tried that during Vietnam, didn't work out to well for them. BTW, I am a former NG officer, bottom line is maybe it says something like that in an obscure statute but as a practical matter no the governor cannot say no. Exactly. Playing power games when you are addicted to the 'crack' of Federal Money is a bad way to do business, so no Governor who pays attention to the budget will do it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah a few governors tried that during Vietnam, didn't work out to well for them. BTW, I am a former NG officer, bottom line is maybe it says something like that in an obscure statute but as a practical matter no the governor cannot say no. Exactly. Playing power games when you are addicted to the 'crack' of Federal Money is a bad way to do business, so no Governor who pays attention to the budget will do it. Pardon my ignorance but are the states not sovereign? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah a few governors tried that during Vietnam, didn't work out to well for them. BTW, I am a former NG officer, bottom line is maybe it says something like that in an obscure statute but as a practical matter no the governor cannot say no. Exactly. Playing power games when you are addicted to the 'crack' of Federal Money is a bad way to do business, so no Governor who pays attention to the budget will do it. Pardon my ignorance but are the states not sovereign? That issue was settled in 1865.... |
|
Quoted:
Speaking of the National Guard (and a quick hi-jack) I'm going into meps on monday and have a quick question. I'm going in as 31b and everything I find says 19 weeks and a day for training but my recruiter insists it's 29 weeks. Which is correct? Thank you for serving. I don't know the answer but if I was to attend training, I would seek out my OSUT / One Station Unit Training website and find out for myself. I was Infantry so I would look on Fort Benning's website. You are 31 Bravo so you should google your basic location. It should be a simple question to answer. Good luck. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That issue was settled in 1865.... A number of states currently disagree with you. More power to those states, I hope they do well resisting the federal government's constant power grabs. However they are not sovereign, they exist as part of a federal system. If they were sovereign it would say "Pennsylvania Army" on the National Guard uniform rather than US Army. |
|
Quoted:
^ 19 weeks sounds correct. 10 for reception/basic and 9 for AIT. Quoted:
Quoted:
Speaking of the National Guard (and a quick hi-jack) I'm going into meps on monday and have a quick question. I'm going in as 31b and everything I find says 19 weeks and a day for training but my recruiter insists it's 29 weeks. Which is correct? Thank you for serving. I don't know the answer but if I was to attend training, I would seek out my OSUT / One Station Unit Training website and find out for myself. I was Infantry so I would look on Fort Benning's website. You are 31 Bravo so you should google your basic location. It should be a simple question to answer. Good luck. Thanks guys! Either way I'll find out for sure soon 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
^ 19 weeks sounds correct. 10 for reception/basic and 9 for AIT. Quoted:
Quoted:
Speaking of the National Guard (and a quick hi-jack) I'm going into meps on monday and have a quick question. I'm going in as 31b and everything I find says 19 weeks and a day for training but my recruiter insists it's 29 weeks. Which is correct? Thank you for serving. I don't know the answer but if I was to attend training, I would seek out my OSUT / One Station Unit Training website and find out for myself. I was Infantry so I would look on Fort Benning's website. You are 31 Bravo so you should google your basic location. It should be a simple question to answer. Good luck. Thanks guys! Either way I'll find out for sure soon
MP is 19 week OSUT @ Ft Leonard Wood. But you should expect to add a week or two for reception/ other delays. Maybe your recruiter saw 19 weeks, and assumed it was AIT, and added ten weeks for basic/ reception? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
^ 19 weeks sounds correct. 10 for reception/basic and 9 for AIT. Quoted:
Quoted:
Speaking of the National Guard (and a quick hi-jack) I'm going into meps on monday and have a quick question. I'm going in as 31b and everything I find says 19 weeks and a day for training but my recruiter insists it's 29 weeks. Which is correct? Thank you for serving. I don't know the answer but if I was to attend training, I would seek out my OSUT / One Station Unit Training website and find out for myself. I was Infantry so I would look on Fort Benning's website. You are 31 Bravo so you should google your basic location. It should be a simple question to answer. Good luck. Thanks guys! Either way I'll find out for sure soon
MP is 19 week OSUT @ Ft Leonard Wood. But you should expect to add a week or two for reception/ other delays. Maybe your recruiter saw 19 weeks, and assumed it was AIT, and added ten weeks for basic/ reception? That's exactly what I thought! I called her on it and she was still insisting 29 weeks. |
|
What I've been told is that a governor can refuse his state's National Guard to the feds, but the president can "federalize" any national guard unit to put them under his command. The only specific example I can think of this happening is the Little Rock Nine.
Wikipedia Armed escort The next day, Woodrow Mann, the Mayor of Little Rock, asked President Eisenhower to send federal troops to enforce integration and protect the nine students. On September 24, the President ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to Little Rock and federalized the entire 10,000 member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of the hands of Governor Faubus. The 101st took positions immediately, and the nine students successfully entered the school on the next day, Wednesday, September 25, 1957. |
|
This very question arose recently during the peak of combat operations in Iraq. Controversial as it was by the left, many questioned whether the governor of any state really had to allow NG troops to be activated if he didn't agree with it. Many a state senator raised this very issue as well. AFAIK, no state refused to allow the NG to be activated. Probably a lot of hot air to appease the left without any actual merit, but with anything I could be terribly wrong.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah a few governors tried that during Vietnam, didn't work out to well for them. BTW, I am a former NG officer, bottom line is maybe it says something like that in an obscure statute but as a practical matter no the governor cannot say no. Exactly. Playing power games when you are addicted to the 'crack' of Federal Money is a bad way to do business, so no Governor who pays attention to the budget will do it. Pardon my ignorance but are the states not sovereign? Technically. But when the Federal Government can take away a significant portion of the budget you are not REALLY sovereign. Highway, education and LEO programs, off the top of my head, are programs which can have the federal funding removed for lack of compliance. This has been used to force compliance on things as piddling as speed limits, does anyone have any illusions that it wouldn't be used for matters of greater import? |
|
Quoted:
Speaking of the National Guard (and a quick hi-jack) I'm going into meps on monday and have a quick question. I'm going in as 31b and everything I find says 19 weeks and a day for training but my recruiter insists it's 29 weeks. Which is correct? 19 weeks...Im a 31B and have many new soldiers coming in. Its 19 weeks. |
|
Quoted: No. This is FALSE.I was talking to a former NM National Guardsman and he said that the Governor of any state can refuse the use of that states NG to the federal government. Is this true? The Army National Guard has been a part-time / full-time component of the United States Army (the regular Army, the National Guard and the US Army Reserve) since 1921 (National Defense Act of 1921, amended 1922). Congress address this again in 1986 with the Montgomery Amendment to that year's Defense Authorization Act.. Dukakis tried it in 1988 - from the NYT - http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/27/us/dukakis-loses-appeal-on-power-over-guard.html Dukakis Loses Appeal On Power Over Guard<h6 class="byline">AP</h6> <h6 class="dateline">Published: October 27, 1988</h6> BOSTON, Oct. 26— Michael S. Dukakis, who attempted to use his power as Governor of Massachusetts to block a National Guard training mission in Central America, has lost an appeal challenging Federal authority over the Guard. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on issued a one-sentence order Tuesday affirming a decision by Federal District Judge Robert Keeton on May 6 that upheld Federal supremacy over the Guard. Mr. Dukakis, the Democratic Presidential nominee, filed a suit in January to block the assignment of 13 public relations specialists in the Massachusetts Guard to Honduras and Panama for two weeks in May because of his opposition to the Reagan Administration's policies in Central America. After Judge Keeton issued his ruling in May, Governor Dukakis appealed but did not try to stop the Massachusetts troops from participating in the road-building exercises. And so did Minnesota Gov. Perpich - from the LAT - http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-11/news/mn-282_1_national-guard Court Upholds U.S. Control of Guard TroopsJune 11, 1990|From Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today the federal government may order state National Guard troops to take part in peacetime training abroad without a governor's consent. In a case that revived a controversy from the 1988 presidential campaign, the justices unanimously upheld a 1986 federal law challenged by Gov. Rudy Perpich of Minnesota. The law was challenged previously by Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts, the defeated 1988 Democratic presidential candidate who opposed sending National Guard troops to train in Central America. "The congressional power to call forth the militia may in appropriate cases supplement its broader power to raise armies and provide for the common defense and general welfare, but it does not limit those powers," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. Dukakis in 1988 denounced the Reagan Administration for what he called a "failed and illegal" policy of supporting Nicaraguan Contra rebels. He said sending National Guard troops to the region was an attempt to intimidate Nicaragua. The Justice Department had said Dukakis' position was "a dagger aimed at the heart of national defense." By contrast, Perpich has not criticized Reagan or Bush Administration foreign policy. Instead, he said the issue is one of states' rights, and argued that the Constitution gives states veto power over peacetime training missions for National Guard members. Perpich did not object when 12 members of a Minnesota National Guard public relations unit happened to be training in Panama last December when U.S. forces invaded to capture Gen. Manuel Noriega. The Minnesota residents returned to the United States a day after the invasion began. The court ruled today on a 1986 federal law known as the Montgomery Amendment that limits the power of governors to withhold consent to federal deployment of National Guard units. The amendment was enacted after several governors said they opposed the Reagan Administration's Central American policy and did not want National Guard troops from their states assigned to training missions in that region. The amendment prohibits any governor from withholding consent to a National Guard unit's active duty outside the country because of an objection to the site, purpose or schedule of the duty. Rep. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (D-Miss.), the amendment's author, said 50 governors should not be allowed to veto National Guard missions because they do not like foreign policy. "We conclude that the Montgomery Amendment is not inconsistent with the (Constitution's) militia clauses," Stevens said. "This case does not raise any question concerning the wisdom of the gubernatorial veto established in 1952, or of its partial repeal in 1986," he added. "We merely hold that since the former was not constitutionally compelled, the Montgomery Amendment is constitutionally valid." |
|
Quoted: I was talking to a former NM National Guardsman and he said that the Governor of any state can refuse the use of that states NG to the federal government. Is this true? Nope. _Perpich vs. Department of Defense_ pretty much settled that, the dual-enlistment system means that National Guard members, when called to Federal service, are governed by Federal laws, and the governor pretty much has zero control over how they are used once they are called up. |
|
Quoted:
Hey, Ryann, it's good to see you on the board.
From what I understand (which I lack any documentation) is that the governor has the ability to run his guard with free reign which may be contrary to federal wishes. However, it would be severely politically damaging to do so and I can never imagine a governor taking measures to that extreme. But, you never know. Nevertheless, it's good to see you around. Thank you for the kind words. I'm still around, just lurk a lot more than I post. |