Is there a bill for the National Guard to be de-federalized in your state?

[undeterred]

States: Federal authority to call up National Guard for Iraq has expired
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2008-01-29 20:52. Nonviolent Resistance
Legislation introduced today in Vermont to recall the Guard

Legislation also planned for Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island; being explored for Maine, Maryland, and Wisconsin

(Washington, D.C.) — A bill introduced today declares that the 2002 federal authorization to call up the State National Guard has expired, and would set in motion steps to recall members of the Vermont Guard. Similar legislation will be introduced by legislators in Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, and is under active discussion in a half-dozen other states, notably Wisconsin, Maine, and Maryland.

Rep. Michael Fisher, lead sponsor of the Vermont bill, stated that, “it is clear that the mission that Congress authorized no longer exists. The President has no current or permanent legal authority to keep Guard members in Iraq. The Governor as Commander-in-Chief of the Vermont National Guard should take necessary steps to bring them home.”

The Vermont bill would limit future Vermont National Guard service to state duties unless properly called into federal service.

Ben Manski, executive director of the pro-democracy group, Liberty Tree, said that, “the debate over the Iraq War changed today in a simple, but profound way. This legislation is limited to recalling the Guard in the absence of congressional authorization. Yet as an attorney who has studied these questions, it strikes me that with this legislation, the states have begun to reassert their historic national defense responsibilities and to honor the Constitution's genius for distributing power over issues of war and peace.”

Said Karen Dolan, director of Cities for Peace, which has coordinated hundreds of local and state governmental anti-war resolutions, "This development comes in the context of millions of people speaking up at the local and state levels in opposition to the war. Over 300 communities and twelve states have voiced outrage over sending our troops to Iraq as a matter of morality and policy. This bill says it is unlawful to keep National Guard troops in Iraq.”

In addition to the Vermont legislation, announced at today’s press conference in Montpelier by Rep. Michael Fisher and Senate President Pro-Tempore Peter Shumlin, legislators in Minnesota (Rep. Frank Hornstein, 651-296-9281), New Hampshire (Rep. Charles Weed, 603-352-8309), Pennsylvania (Rep. Tony Payton, 215-744-7901), and Rhode Island (Rep. David Segal, 401-432-7049), will sponsor similar National Guard legislation.

Legislators in six other states, notably Maryland (Sen. Jamie Raskin, 301-858-3634), Maine (Rep. Ted Koffman, 207- 288-5015), and Wisconsin (Rep. Spencer Black, 608-266-7521), are working on the issue and considering following suit.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30548

This came out in January but I just saw it recently and I am checking into the Wisconsin bill- if you live in one of the other states I would love to hear what is happening regarding legislation to defederalize the National Guard in your state and if there is opposition, etc.

[SpiralHawk]

1. Stop the republicon Nation Building overseas

And bring our National Guard back home to defend America.

This is the bullshit you get with a National Guard deserter lying us into a republicon oil profits crusade...

[undeterred]

2. We have to fight to make them state militia again

or no one is going to volunteer. And if there is no decent GI Bill passed and no one takes care of the veterans, no one is going to volunteer then either. Chickenhawks have destroyed the military.

[SpiralHawk]

5. You are right: republicon chickenhawks have trashed our military

...and undercut and undermined our veterans at every level...

[Hugabear]

3. If the president wants to use the National Guard, get Congress to declare war

We should really make that into law.

[undeterred]

4. Well, it is the law, isn't it?

The next president- doesn't need an act of Congress to bring the troops home. According to the law, some of the National Guard troops are there illegally now, but they won't be brought home unless the states start fighting it, which is going to be difficult.

There are so many things this president has fu*ked up that we are going to have to reverse and rebuild - we thought we had laws and a firm constitution but apparently it was all held together with scotch tape and popsicle sticks.

[ThomWV]

6. Well well, isn't this special. Have they bothered to read the Constitution?

Article II, Section 2:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, ..."

No where does it say that war must be declared for the President to call up the militia and no where does it say there is a time limit to how long he may engage the militia.

[undeterred]

7. These folks are saying that after 6 years

the Federal Authority has expired.

[ThomWV]

8. The Constitution doesn't say a word about an expiration date.

[undeterred]

9. Its on the side of the carton.

No- I don't know- I am just hoping that the lawyers who are bringing this up know something I don't. Maybe its in state laws.

[YankeyMCC]

10. There is a story about a militia refusing to cross the Canadian border during the war of 1812

I remember reading about it in a book on the War I read last year but here is a reference I found on the Internet: http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-06.htm

"The Americans repelled a hastily formed counterattack later in the morning, during which General Brock was killed. This, however, was the high point of van Rensselaer's fortunes. Although 1,300 men were successfully ferried across the river under persistent British fire Prom a fortified battery north of town, less than half of them ever reached the American line on the heights. Most of the militiamen refused to cross the river, insisting on their legal right to remain on American soil, and General Smyth ignored van Rensselaer's request for Regulars. Meanwhile, British and Canadian reinforcements arrived in Queenston, and Maj. Gen. Roger Sheave, General Brock's successor, began to advance on the American position with a force of 800 troops and 300 Indian skirmishers. Van Rensselaer's men, tired and outnumbered, put up a stiff resistance on the heights but in the end were defeated—300 Americans were killed or wounded and nearly 1,000 were captured."



"Persuaded to accept the command of the northern theater, except for Hull's forces, he was in doubt for some time about the extent of his authority over the Niagara front. When it was clarified he was reluctant to exercise it. Proposing to move his army, which included seven regiments of Regulars with artillery and dragoons, against Montreal in conjunction with a simultaneous operation across the Niagara River, Dearborn was content to wait for his subordinates to make the first move. When van Rensselaer made his attempt against Queenston, Dearborn, who was still in the vicinity of Albany, showed no sign of marching toward Canada. At the beginning of November he sent a large force north to Plattsburg and announced that he would personally lead the army into Montreal, but most of his force got no farther than the border. When his advanced guard was driven back to the village of Champlain by Canadian militiamen and Indians, and his Vermont and New York volunteers flatly refused to cross the border, Dearborn quietly turned around and marched back to Plattsburg, where he went into winter quarters."