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

The President plans to mobilize the National Guard to to go Liberia and fight Ebola.

www.nbcnews.com...

President Barack Obama is expected to issue an executive order Thursday paving the way for the deployment of National Guard forces to Liberia to help contain the Ebola outbreak there, sources told NBC News. The sources said that eight engineers and logistical specialists from the Guard, both active-duty and reservists, would probably be included in the first deployment. They are expected to help build 17 Ebola treatment centers, with 100 beds apiece. The sources said that no decision had been made. Defense Department officials said that the executive order was necessary to speed the deployments, and would allow the president to send additional forces as needed. Health officials have recorded more than 2,400 Ebola deaths in Liberia, the highest of any country.

Under law, I think the Governors of each state can say no to the President if the mobilization is for other than insurrections and invasions or declared war.

www.ngaus.org...

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the Militia Clause) also authorizes use of the National Guard under contin - uing state control but in the ser vice of the federal government to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

The Adjutants General Association of the United States (A GAUS) is coordinating with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense in the development of implementing regu- lations. Title 32 USC 901 et.seq. therefore authorizes use of the Guard under continuing state control but at federal e xpense, when approved by the Secretary of Defense, for a wide variety of operations, including, when appropriate, protection of oil refineries, nuclear power plants and other critical infrastructure.

T he War Powers Clause of the Constitution grants the federal government plenary authority to raise military forces and to employ such forces, including mobilized (sometimes referred to as “federalized”) National Guard units, under federal control and at federal expense for national defense purposes.

I could be wrong, but I think a medical humanitarian mission to a foreign country does not fall under any of the legal provisions allowing the President to use them for this reason.

It seems to me that legally, the Governors could say no to the President in this instance, as for in most circumstances the Governors are in control of their own national guard. I do not think that Obama can just use his pen to circumvent the proscribed laws regarding his personal use of the National Guard for foreign humanitarian reasons.

a reply to: grandmakdw

they'll cave you can bet on it.


how are they gonna fight a disease? shoot at it?

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

a reply to: Elton

In the case of the National Guard they do have some authorities over the president.

National Guard was supposed to be about protecting our shores but it seems they get treated just like reserves anymore.

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.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Elton

In the case of the National Guard they do have some authorities over the president.

National Guard was supposed to be about protecting our shores but it seems they get treated just like reserves anymore.

SOME is the key word.

No where I can find in the law can the President call up the national guard for a foreign humanitarian or medical mission.

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.

The National Guard is under the direct control of the Governor in each state, unless very specific requirements are met that allow the President to call them up and use them.

I do not believe this meets the criteria and I think the President is calling them up illegally, unless someone can prove otherwise.

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.

Whats the use of sending the national guard anyway?

I dont know much about them but are they not just the 2nd rate part time troops you keep at home just "in case".

Surely its the highly trained medical and logistical staff in the regular army thats better to send over like the UK doing?

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?

Ebola could be argued to have the potential to affect US assets and infrastructure, with the hysteria, what governor would say "no"?
Better to stop the fire at the source instead of pissing when it gets close.

The smartest move would be to stop it over there, before it becomes an out-of-control global problem. If it becomes an out-of-control global problem, our only recourse would be to stop all international travel including imports and exports to and from the U.S. ... FOREVER. If that happens, we will be thrown back into the dark ages. It's not just humanitarian, it's self-protection. Why would any governor with half a brain try to stop it?

originally posted by: crazyewok
Whats the use of sending the national guard anyway?

I dont know much about them but are they not just the 2nd rate part time troops you keep at home just "in case".

Surely its the highly trained medical and logistical staff in the regular army thats better to send over like the UK doing?

They will help build treatment centers. They are desperately in need of them over there, with their dirty, makeshift tents on the ground.

But you are right, we should also send medical personnel as well, and lots of supplies.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I think your missing what I said.

I am fully aware of the need to build treatment centrers ect

My point was, why the national guard?

Is it not better to send the better trained regular military than some part time hicks?

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: kaylaluv

I think your missing what I said.

I am fully aware of the need to build treatment centrers ect

My point was, why the national guard?

Is it not better to send the better trained regular military than some part time hicks?

I agree.

However, you are all missing the question and the purpose of the OP

Can Governors refuse to allow the President to use the national guard from their state

for foreign humanitarian/medical mission?

originally posted by: crazyewok


I dont know much about them but are they not just the 2nd rate part time troops you keep at home just "in case".

Yes you are correct in part of your statement, You don't know much about them.

The Majority of National Guard members are former Active Duty Military, a lot of them are experienced Marines, including combat experienced Army and Navy. The new Guard is not your stereotypical second rate Soldier anymore, times have changed.

Edit: Many National Guard members have been deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan , etc, many are still in the guard, many have been in combat tours. Many are back home with great civilian jobs, many stay in to help their country. There, Broken down Barney style for you.

originally posted by: the owlbear
Ebola could be argued to have the potential to affect US assets and infrastructure, with the hysteria, what governor would say "no"?
Better to stop the fire at the source instead of pissing when it gets close.

A Governor who does not want Ebola brought back to his state when the National Guard return.

A Governor who does not want to sent his troops to a certain death sentence for at least a few.

originally posted by: 38181

originally posted by: crazyewok


I dont know much about them but are they not just the 2nd rate part time troops you keep at home just "in case".

Yes you are correct in part of your statement, You don't know much about them. Majority of National Guard members are former Active Duty Military, a lot of them are experienced Marines, including combat experienced Army and Navy. The new Guard is not your stereotypical second rate Soldier anymore, times have changed.

This is a thread drift.

Please stick to the topic.

Can Governors refuse President Obama in this situation?

No, the governors can't refuse, because this action is to stop an invasion. An Invasion of ebola into our country.

There... happy now?