Can Governors say no to Obama trying to send National Guard members to Libera (Ebola)

They most certainly can.

This is not considered an emergency response.
This is a contingency response to a humanitarian crisis in ANOTHER COUNTRY.

The authority of a state national guard deployment to a situation such as this requires a governors approval. Furthermore if the feds push the issue there is always the court system.

a reply to: projectvxn

I made a lengthy post on the last page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In it I try to show under what circumstances the government can order a call up of reserves, and how limited the Governors' powers are to object.

Further down in the page I posted part of a news story saying that Obama had declared the kind of emergency authorizing him to call up the reserves

Take it through the courts? Nope, won't go. The government will argue that it is a properly declared emergency and they can't sit around waiting for litigation. The only way I can see is to try to get the Supremes to issue an emergency ruling, and by-pass all the other courts.

a reply to: grandmakdw

They cant disobey an Executive Order...ordered by the leader of the Armed Forces...the President of the United States.

originally posted by: Jansy

originally posted by: amazing
Why would they want to stop him though? Why would anyone stop this?

On the surface it's humanitarian, which is good, but if you look deeper, it's to protect ourselves. If we can contain Ebola in Africa better, there is less chance of infected people coming to the states. This is in America's self interest.

Fine...protecting the US (and the rest of the world) from Ebola is all well and good. My question remains: Just what exactly will the National Guard be able to do to STOP the spread of Ebola. They (for the most part) are NOT trained medical personnel. We will be exposing hundreds and hundreds of "weekend warriors" to a horrible disease because......why????

No, ask any ex military. It's the logistical support and supply chain support and helping to guard medical supplies and quarantine zones etc. It's all good like that. There will be competent leadership (one would hope) and many of these guardsmen have served in Iraq and Afghanistan or have experience already. Also there is communications, record keeping, military police and on and on and on. It's still a good thing that can help stop the spread of the disease. You want it fought over there. You don't want D-day to be Dallas or somewhere else in the states.

a reply to: charles1952

As to your first two posts, both conditions require a national emergency.

A humanitarian/medical mission to a foreign country is not a national emergency.

As to the Governor's objections in your third quote, it was based on subsections b & d

(b) At any time, an authority designated by the Secretary concerned may, without the consent of the persons affected, order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, in an active status in a reserve component under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to active duty for not more than 15 days a year. However, units and members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States may not be ordered to active duty under this subsection without the consent of the governor of the State (or, in the case of the District of Columbia National Guard, the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard).

(d) At any time, an authority designated by the Secretary concerned may order a member of a reserve component under his jurisdiction to active duty, or retain him on active duty, with the consent of that member. However, a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States may not be ordered to active duty under this subsection without the consent of the governor or other appropriate authority of the State concerned.

www.law.cornell.edu...


According to subsection b - the President can only order a National Guard person to active duty without the Governors consent for 15 days if there is no national emergency.

The Governor just can not object to which individuals the Secretary chooses to call up in a national emergency.

This is not a national emergency it is a humanitarian mission. So I think legally the Governors could withhold consent.

an authority designated by the Secretary concerned may,

which secretary designated obama as the authority to call up the national guard?
since this is a medical related national emergency then I would assume that it would have to be the secretary of health and human services.
did the secretary of health and human services in fact designate obama as the authority allowed to call up the guard?


if a state of national emergency has indeed been declared then obama now has authority to take control of all the resources in the country under The National Defense Resources Preparedness order.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Dear grandmakdw,

As to your first two posts, both conditions require a national emergency.

You are absolutely right, and you point out the important point right at the start. I did not know the authority the president was using. I was confusing things by using the wrong authority, I'm sorry. However, he does have the authority to do the call up under a seperate part of Title 10, and that is the authority he claims to be acting under in the Executive order he published.

Title 10 Section 12304 reads in part:

(a) Authority.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12302 (a) or any other provision of law, when the President determines that it is necessary to augment the active forces for any named operational mission or that it is necessary to provide assistance referred to in subsection (b), he may authorize the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, without the consent of the members concerned, to order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit of the Selected Reserve (as defined in section 10143 (a) of this title), or any member in the Individual Ready Reserve mobilization category and designated as essential under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, under their respective jurisdictions, to active duty for not more than 365 consecutive days.

If I recall, this operation has been named United Assistance. (Sounds like an insurance company.)

Ready Reserve? Section 10101, same Title.

The reserve components of the armed forces are:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States.
(2) The Army Reserve.
(3) The Navy Reserve.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States.
(6) The Air Force Reserve.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve.

I hate it too, but it looks like he's holding the cards. Let's try to talk the legislators into changing the laws to return the National Guard to the states.

a reply to: charles1952

The national guard was never really part of the state government.

Their uniforms are no different than mine and I'm active duty.

They have state emblems for unit patches, I have division emblems on mine.

Otherwise they both say US ARMY on the chest.

originally posted by: amazing
Why would they want to stop him though? Why would anyone stop this?

On the surface it's humanitarian, which is good, but if you look deeper, it's to protect ourselves. If we can contain Ebola in Africa better, there is less chance of infected people coming to the states. This is in America's self interest.

Perhaps they would stop him because these National Guard units need to available to the states in case of a disaster, natural or otherwise. Why would a governor agree to having hundreds of his Guard troops far away in Africa---or under quarantine when a tornado or hurricane comes blowing through?
If he were suggesting using the Guard to close the borders of our country----that would make sense. If he is serious about stopping it in Africa, he must quit letting the infected people out of the African countries and spreading the disease in the US and Europe.
Yes, the governors can tell him to go suck eggs. He has not declared a state of emergency so he can't just up and take the defenses of the individual states.

originally posted by: paxnatus
a reply to: kaylaluv

If he gives a crap about stopping an invasion into America, why not impose a travel ban fro West African countries where disease is running rampant?? Not permanently but until eradicated!!

Do you not understand until this happens we will have more and more cases of Ebola showing up all over the world!!

This is where you start, not with wasting good military men and women!!

Pax

I agree with a travel ban

BUT

It wont work alone. Ebola needs to be eradicated at its source if not then it risks spreading to other African country's and even to non African 3rd world country's like India. If that happens you have a huge mess and blow to the US economy as you cant keep travel banning.
Ebola needs eradicating at its source and west African country's do not have the resources or ability's to do so.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: paxnatus

Do you not understand that scared, sick West Africans will find ways to get out of their areas, undetected, into other countries over there? Do you not understand that not every country over there has the means to keep them out, or to deal with this as a pandemic? Do you not understand that if the disease is not stopped now, no one will be able to control who gets it? Do you not understand that this is how it will eventually get to every country in the world?

If this is not a national emergency now, believe me it will be - only then, it will probably be too late to do anything about it.

Do you not understand that purposefully exposing 4000 US troops to ebola is terrorism towards the military?
I understand that this disease has created a national emergency in several west African countries. I understand that several countries have shut their borders, thus avoiding massive outbreaks.
I could understand sending in troops if the host country requested them---troops that were trained in biological warfare and decontamination. I could understand sending in units trained in logistics & transportation or military police units.
So far we've had one infected person make it to the US on the sly via airplane. So far he has caused at least two infections in US healthcare workers who were taking precautions not to catch it. Only two of the 72 people taking care of him got the disease. Now if those two healthcare workers only infect two of the health care workers tending to them, we'll have only 6 cases from Mr. Duncan. But if that rate continues..... "Only two of 72 are infected," sounds pretty good until you start looking down the road a bit.
The US has only 19 beds designed to safely hold patients with this disease. What happens when only half a dozen or so of the thousands of US troops come down with ebola? What will they be told? "Sorry, all our beds are full....you're military and just out of luck."

originally posted by: Restricted
Let some other country volunteer to die en masse. The US has done enough.

How very short sighted of you.

Other country's are. UK sending in its army as we speak.

But THIS is a US problem. USA needs to pull its weight as it affects YOU.


It not the worlds fault you have spent the last few decades chasing goat herders in pointless wars.

Now you have a REAL threat to national security and public safety you need to man up and pull your weight. The fact you wasted your time in the ME is of no concern.

a reply to: grandmakdw
Every Guardsman is simultaneously a member of two military forces: the [Name of State] Army [or Air] National Guard, and the Army [or Air] National Guard of the United States. The former is a federally-recognized and -funded state force. The latter is a component of the US Army [or Air Force]. As commander in chief of all United States forces, the President can put the ARNGUS and ANGUS on active duty regardless of what the governor wants to do, or not do, with his [Name of State] National Guard. There are various statutory limitations, just like there are limitations on everything else concerning the military, but that's what it comes down to. And when push comes to shove, presidents will ignore statutory limitations on the military and claim Constitutional CinC authority to do what they want with their forces, until Congress cuts off the money.

States are free to establish state defense forces outside the National Guard, if they want a military that the President can't take away. About half have done so.

The only reason he would declare an emergency situation before it actually exists in the US is to go around budgetary limitations. Once an executive has signed that emergency declaration he can ignore budgets and let contracts to all his buddies. He can create a whole department and appoint a czar and 500 new staff members if he deems it necessary under his emergency powers. This information comes from a person who has held those sorts of executive powers. As in all things----follow the money. They are certainly not going to let this excellent crisis go to waste!
Watch to see who gets the contracts to supply these troops with the new equipment they are going to need.
According to the article, no National Guard units have been called up. If they are, it will be interesting to see if they are combat units like the 101st Airborne.
My prayers are with everyone who is facing this ordeal.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Restricted
Let some other country volunteer to die en masse. The US has done enough.

How very short sighted of you.

Other country's are. UK sending in its army as we speak.

But THIS is a US problem. USA needs to pull its weight as it affects YOU.


It not the worlds fault you have spent the last few decades chasing goat herders in pointless wars.

Now you have a REAL threat to national security and public safety you need to man up and pull your weight. The fact you wasted your time in the ME is of no concern.

I would agree if the world's military forces were sent to line the borders of the hot zone and not let anyone in or out until Ebola has burned itself out and the world would be safe again.

As long as there is no quarantine in place for the hot zone, sending troops in to do "aid" is just another way of infecting more people and spreading it further.

a reply to: Tardacus

Dear Tardacus,

I cited the wrong authority in the post you're commenting on. I didn't know under which authority the President was operating, and I chose the wrong one. The correct authority is Title 10, Section 12304 and I provide it in the post directly following yours.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Elton
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, I doubt a Governor can overrule him on military matters.

But the times the President can use the National Guard is clearly set out by law.

Humanitarian and medical missions are not part of the clearly defined times the President can use the National Guard. The National Guard is under the control of the Governor of each state, unless there are specific and spelled out by law times when the President can call out the national guard.

This use is not part of what is clearly defined by law as far as I can tell from my research.

You are correct. The NG has been called out in every war we've fought since it was founded, but the times they are permitted to be called out are specifically defined by US code. This is not one of them. He's also calling up selective IRR individuals--something that is unprecedented for this type of situation. The last time the IRR was called up was during the beginning of OIF and that was just to fill stateside spots that were emptied by the mobilization of the active duty for the invasion.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Would you help me out. You're pretty definite in saying that this is a situation which doesn't allow for the president to call up National Guard units or individuals. If so, what do we do with this:

Title 10 Section 12304 reads in part:

(a) Authority.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12302 (a) or any other provision of law, when the President determines that it is necessary to augment the active forces for any named operational mission or that it is necessary to provide assistance referred to in subsection (b), he may authorize the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, without the consent of the members concerned, to order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit of the Selected Reserve (as defined in section 10143 (a) of this title), or any member in the Individual Ready Reserve mobilization category and designated as essential under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, under their respective jurisdictions, to active duty for not more than 365 consecutive days.

It's is not the effing job of the National Guard to go fight Ebola.

Hell it is NOT the function of the US military PERIOD to fight 'disease'.

The National Guard is the 'peoples militia' recognized by the federal state since it is the only 'militia' that has become legally allowed.

The National Guard is an asset of each state.

The US military aka armed forces is an asset of the federal state.

Neither one has any business what so ever fighting 'disease'.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: amazing
Why would they want to stop him though? Why would anyone stop this?

Cause what's the point of sending poorly trained home guards when you have better trained people to send?

Yeah like the CDC, and the WHO.

Universally recognized government agencies.