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

a reply to: crazyewok

They're not PT hicks. They're usually people who have already served.

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

There... happy now?

Sorry but Ebola does not qualify as an invasion. It is a medical issue, a very serious one and we don't need to be sending more people to the area to bring it home.

So I think the governors can refuse, since no one has come up with a legal reason they can't. Executive orders don't count in this case, the law supersedes executive order.

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.

That can be stopped much easier by not allowing people from infected areas into the United States, much cheaper, much more effective and does not put our troops at death's door on purpose.

a reply to: amazing

Obama's plan is clear, he wants to sacrifice America for Africa!! If he gave one #e about the American people or the Military he would have banned travel fro West Africa before the criminal Eric Duncan brought the disease into our country!!!

He wants to send our military to clean up Africa but refuses to ban travel still!! The American Embassy remains open in West African countries where Ebola is running rampant, and visas are still being processed!

He will endanger every American and our Military to save his homeland but not support our Military in their fight against ISIS.....What a murderous treasonist bastard!!

Pax

a reply to: paxnatus

Applause!

originally posted by: grandmakdw

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.

Hey! At least I stayed on topic. In your quotes it did say the president could call up the Guard for purposes outside of the border to protect assets and infrastructure.

Ebola from Liberia has already shut down a hospital, several schools, an airplane, healthcare workers...
it could be argued that it will affect ALL infrastructure and U.S. interests if something is not done. And calling the Guard to help would seem to protect U.S. infrastructure.
I see no legal objection from what you have provided. Burden of proof would be on the State's involved whose guard is called to claim otherwise. But I will admit I am not a Constitutional lawyer.

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

Perhaps this will help.

Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 12301 says:

(a) In time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress, or when otherwise authorized by law, 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, of a reserve component under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to active duty for the duration of the war or emergency and for six months thereafter. . . .

That "otherwise authorized by law" would include a Presidential declaration of national emergency, which he made just a little while ago.

www.law.cornell.edu...

And with only the slightest twist of wording, Section 12302:

(a) In time of national emergency declared by the President after January 1, 1953, or when otherwise authorized by law, an authority designated by the Secretary concerned may, without the consent of the persons concerned, order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, in the Ready Reserve under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to active duty for not more than 24 consecutive months.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Now, what about the power of the Governor, which requires the president to get the Governor's approval? Back to Section 12301:

(f) The consent of a Governor described in subsections (b) and (d) may not be withheld (in whole or in part) with regard to active duty outside the United States, its territories, and its possessions, because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such active duty.

Then what reason would allow a Governor to say "No?"

The answer to your question is that if the president really wants the National Guard, he can take it. Oh, and the Governors just have to sit there and take it, too, I suppose.

This is a real win for those of you who want a strong government in D.C., and feeble bureaucrats left to deal with state issues that the feds don't care to bother about. The National Guard and Reserves can be ordered to duty in case of a domestic emergency (according to DoD), and if they're not excited about fighting against American civilians, they can be locked up for violation of orders. That would keep them out of the government's way. Hmmmm. Do we have any place where we could lock up thousands of disobedient soldiers?

Didn't you know what you were doing when you elected him? And twice, for crying out loud.

a reply to: charles1952

I don't see any scenario in what you posted that would force Governors to comply with the President in this particular case.

It is not a domestic emergency, it is a foreign emergency.

Please point out to me where the President can act against the wishes of the Governors in this instance, if the governor refuses.

a reply to: charles1952

Am I correct while looking at what you posted that all those laws were put into effect back in 1953?


Who gave them that power? Can we take it away?

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.

Let some other country volunteer to die en masse. The US has done enough.

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.

Actually the very best solution would be for the UN to quarantine the countries with active Ebola cases until no new cases are brought forth in 42 days.

The best way to stop it is to quarantine, not take more people in to catch it and then bring it back to their countries. Definitely not to allow anyone from those countries into your country.

But our government is too politically correct to do the right thing.

Look at Enterovirus which is paralyzing and killing the children in the US. It is now clear the virus came from the illegal children from south america.
The worst of it is that the government knew that the virus was carried by these children, the Border Patrol told them many times.

But instead of quarantining them or sending them back to their country of origin for care, the government instead knowingly sent infected illegal immigrant children to every state in the union, to further kill and paralyze US children.

The CDC today said we "owed" Liberia the assistance since it is settled mainly from former US slaves. Well, after 200 years of collective guilt with no one left alive who was either a slave or slave owner, I would think that the collective guilt and responsibility should be over. It is just PC nonsense which will end up killing millions of Americans when the National Guard return and from the over 100 people from infected countries that the CDC admits comes into the US daily by air.


Quarantines stop diseases from traveling, not having hundreds of people travel in and out daily of infected areas. That is corporate suicide. or more sinister a deliberate attempt to depopulate by liberals and progressives who have wanted depopulation for a long time.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Dear grandmakdw,

I see that you posted your response 5 minutes after I posted my comment, perhaps you haven't had time to read it thoroughly. My first two quotes from the U.S.C. show how a president can call up the Reserves and National Guard, without anyone's consent.

The third quote gives reasons that the Governors CAN'T use for withholding their troops. It doesn't matter if it's foreign or domestic.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: kaylaluv

Are you not aware that Nigeria, Senegal, Guniea and the Congo have stopped their epidemic of Ebola outbreak?

Why has that happened? Because those countries did NOT allow anyone from the West African countries to enter there countries!!!! They imposed a travel ban!! And guess what, IT WORKED!!!

Are you trying to tell me that smaller countries in Africa have stronger Governments, Military and means to stop people from leaving infected countries than the United States of America???

Reality Check Please!!

What is the point of allowing these people into our country with a level 4 virus???? And sending our soldiers into these countries only does 2 things.....increases the risk of them returning and infected more people in America and insures they will become exposed!!

its a stupid mentality!! I am all for sending supplies everything they need!! let them be first for vaccines, blood transfusions ect. teach them via internet workshops but stop wasting some of our best for there benefit and sacrificing ours!!

Hello, there is a war going on against ISIS Mr. President......you sent in Special Forces to defeat these barbaric killers why not send soldiers to back up the Forces and finally get done what is needed there.....Instead you are preoccupied with helping Africa but refuse to protect the American people!! And something else! If Nurses in a first world country whom have had experience in dealing with all kinds of illnesses and extensive patient care...CAN NOT EVEN PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM COMING DOWN WITH EBOLA, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK SOLDIERS WHO ARE NOT TRAINED AS NURSES OR HAVE NOT HAD EXPERIENCE WITH INFECTOUS DISEASES ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES IN A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY??? This logic is ridiculous!! and uninformed from one who is clueless about diseases and humans!!

Obozo is in so far over his head!! he needs to resign or volunteer to help fight ebola in his homeland!!

Pax

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????

a reply to: Jansy
Reposting...

Actually, from what I've read, and from people I know, one in particular, most of the skill sets of those they're sending over (so far, or first anyway) are engineering and medical.

They will be mainly constructing mobile hospitals and coordinating distribution of equipment and supplies. Probably also some dead body duty.

Of course, they all also have weapons and know how to use them.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

One of my two favorite answers is "It depends." The other is "Yes and no." Use either one here.

Yes, the original laws were passed by the Congress in the 1950s. Remember the threat from Russia was very real, and they already had nukes.

But, no, what you see on the page aren't the laws that were passed in the 50s. They have been amended many times. As the page says, up at the top, they're current through some public law that was passed this year. There's a tab toward the top that says "notes." Click on that and you'll get a page of nearly incomprehensible citations indicating how the section was altered over the years.

What I linked to is what the government is currently working under.

Change it? Sure. Easy. Congress just has to vote to change the law and then the president signs it. Easy? Yes. Likely? Send someone to interview the puddle that used to be the snowball, before it vaporizes.

But I'm being hasty. Maybe some of the National Guard provisions could be passed, but you'd need a smaller government president and Congress than we have now to get the law actually changed.

With respect,
Charles1952

Today's news:

President Barack Obama on Thursday authorized the Pentagon to call up reserve and National Guard troops if they are needed to assist in the U.S. response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Obama signed an executive order that allows the government to call up more forces and for longer periods of time than currently authorized. There is no actual call-up at this point.

The U.S. has committed to send up to 4,000 military personnel to West Africa to provide logistics and humanitarian assistance and help build treatment units to confront the rapidly spreading and deadly virus.

Obama also notified top congressional officials of his move.

abcnews.go.com...

Just what exactly will the National Guard be able to do to STOP the spread of Ebola.

I am so glad I am out of the military for this one. Yeah I know the pick is insensitive and all but I didn't sign on for that $#!t and neither did they. Ebola can't be fought by soldiers except in one way.