It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could a governor refuse to send guard troops?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 01:07 AM
As the "war on terror" rages on I was wondering if a sitting states governor could refuse to send guard troops? Could a governor refuse to send troops that were not properly trained? I have read stories about troops "rushed" to iraq without "complete" training. Could a sitting governor not send guard troops because of this? I have also read stories about troops not having the equipment they need; could a governor not send guard troops because of lack of equipment?

If our governors have any say as to guard troops many will have some 'splainin to do come election time as governors do not have the protection of the electorial college.

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 05:18 AM
Concerning your question, I don't know.

However, deploying national guards is an act of some really desperate men. Besides, it's a complete waste of money, but more importantly, a waste of human life.

When China wakes, it will shake the world. ~ Napoléon Bonaparte.

The active army is about broken

An increasing number of senior retired officers, some of whom had previously expressed optimism that the active-duty force of some 500,000 soldiers could handle U.S. commitments in the "global war on terror," now say the current situation today reminds them of 1980, when the service's top officer, Gen. Edward Meyer, publicly declared that the country had a "hollow Army."

"The active army is about broken," former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who also served as chairman of the Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush 15 years ago, told Time magazine this week, while another highly decorated retired general who just returned from Iraq and Afghanistan described the situation in even more dire terms.

"The truth is, the U.S. Army is in serious trouble and any recovery will be years in the making and, as a result, the country is in a position of strategic peril," ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, former head of the U.S. Southern Command, told the National Journal, elaborating on a much-cited memo he had written for his colleagues at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

"My bottom line is that the Army is unraveling, and if we don't expend significant national energy to reverse that trend, sometime in the next two years we will break the Army just like we did during Vietnam," he added.

In an indication of the growing concern, both Time and the more elite-oriented Journal ran cover stories this week. They both concluded that the Army was rapidly approaching or had already reached "the breaking point."

U.S. military buildup urged to counter China

The United States should build up military forces in Asia to counter China's military expansion, according to a report on U.S.-China relations by a blue-ribbon panel.

"The United States should sustain and selectively enhance its force posture in East Asia, ensuring it has capabilities commensurate with the region's growing importance to the U.S. economy and other vital national interests," the report by a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations stated.
The task force, whose report was made public yesterday, was led by retired Pacific Command chief Adm. Dennis Blair and former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills.

"We believe that the United States should maintain the air, maritime and space superiority that we have in the Western Pacific that's been the basis of a lot of Western Pacific/East Asian development ever since the end of the Second World War. And we need to maintain that position," Adm. Blair said.
The report stated that upgrades to the U.S. military base on the Pacific island of Guam should continue and that the U.S. military should "invest broadly" in next-generation technologies that are appropriate for the Pacific, such as advanced naval and air forces.

The Pentagon also should consider "shifting the balance of its naval forces toward the Pacific from the Atlantic," the report stated.
"The maritime interests of the United States in the future are increasingly in the Asia-Pacific region, and the stationing of its naval forces should be aligned with this trend," it stated.
The buildup and shift of forces to the Pacific is part of what the Pentagon calls its "hedge" strategy of being ready to defeat China swiftly in any military conflict.

The report also stated that the United States needs to improve its intelligence-gathering and analysis of the Chinese military, including training more intelligence specialists with Chinese language skills.

I do not suggest that China will attack the U.S. right now it is so vulnerable, but it could launch an attack on Taiwan within years, which the US for military and economic reasons would not be able to counter.

As Powell says, the army is about broken, and not as powerful as most people in the world previously assumed. For those who have researched the state of the US economy they'll agree the situation is really bad. Yes, Bush is writing history, responsible for what is going to hit the US and the world.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Mdv2]

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 05:34 AM
Hi shooterbrody,

You're question is interesting because I think there's no clear cut answer at this time, and it will probably get a court challenge in the near future. The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the Federal commander in chief the ability to utilize state militia's for law enforcement purposes, quelling riots and civil unrest, etc. This act was recently amended after Katrina to give the federal commander in chief the authority to use state militia's in maintaining the peace during natural disasters.

The big question of course is whether Bush can lawfully use the Insurrection Act to send state militia troops to Iraq for "law enforcement" purposes. I think many states, already stretched thin, will be taking this use of their troops to court to see how far the president can go.

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 05:41 AM
check out this link for more information on how "Bush is emobilizing the ENTIRE national guard for deployment to Iraq"

I have used this link also in the thread titled "Iran War is imminent?"

as the previous poster said, immobilizing the national guard is the actions of a very desperate man and Bush is that man. Something really big is going to go down very soon for him to want to deploy 80,000 national guard, reserve and ex-servicement. The trigger event is about to happen to justify the Iran invasion in the eyes of Bush and Co.

I give no more than 3 or 4 weeks till all hell breaks loose.......Literally

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 06:18 AM
Sure the Governor can refuse, it just won't do any good.

The Guard and Reserve get payed by the DoD, they are Federal troops.


posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 06:36 AM

Originally posted by shooterbrody
As the "war on terror" rages on I was wondering if a sitting states governor could refuse to send guard troops?

I doubt a Governor could out-&-out 'Refuse'
but like you bring up, the state Governor could delay a call up
using training or equiptment shortfalls as an excuse....

Any state Governor could- -if they were really crafty- -
could have their national guards already deployed for a need in their state for an emergency in their state....
making a federal deployment a moot point!

how many options would a Governor have?
i don't know, but crop pollination may be deemed an emergency,
seeing as how bee hives are disappearing maybe the Governor could
activate the state N.G. to don gloves & respirators in paper jump-suits
and a dust brush in hand with a cup of pollin dust...
to have divisions of soldiers canvass every crop field in the state & dust the appropriate plant with the pollin
so that crops would be produced.

If state N.G.s are already on assignment, then going to Afghan or Iraq
would be a difficult & a political noose for the Fed to explain.
the residents/voters of that state would wonder...
'Are we of no account?...that our economy & our states well being is secondary to the 4 year old Iraq invasion?'


on-the-other-hand, the Fed (& administration) holds the purse strings, ->>
if a Governor dragged their heels on mobilizing the state guards-min
for a fed call up, then revenue sharing, road tax appropriations, gas tax sharing
sent from DC to the state's treasury would fail to show up!
some would call this arrangement a 'strong-arm tactic, even 'black-mail'
by the Feds'.....but in the eyes of the law....its legal

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 12:23 PM
Hey shooterbrody, maybe this will aide in your inquiry.

The Army National Guard (ARNG) is one component of The Army (which consists of the Active Army, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserves.) The Army National Guard is composed primarily of traditional Guardsmen -- civilians who serve their country, state and community on a part-time basis (usually one weekend each month and two weeks during the summer.) Each state, territory and the District of Columbia has its own National Guard, as provided for by the Constitution of the United States.

The National Guard has a unique dual mission that consists of both Federal and State roles. For state missions, the governor, through the state Adjutant General, commands Guard forces. The governor can call the National Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances.

In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard for participation in federal missions. Examples of federal activations include Guard units deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo for stabilization operations and units deployed to the Middle East and other locations in the war on terrorism. When federalized, Guard units are commanded by the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating.

It is appearant to me that the President can use the National Guard just the same as the active military personnel. The Governor's role is the "Commander in Chief" on the states level, which would issue deployment for the Guardsmen under a state's emergency. Having dual roles, as shown on the Army National Guard website, is something that I was not aware of, but is very interesting to know.

Guess we gain more understanding about the Presidents powers each day.

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 01:05 PM
I read that many governors have the ability to accept discharge requests from officers in the guard,and have the ability to discharge enlisted as well. So if the governor so chose the governor could discharge all guard from the governors state then there would be noone from that state to send.

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 01:09 PM
Whether or not the Governor was able to discharge every personnel from his/her unit, the National Guard (even per state) is required by the Constitution.

So, I guess they could "refresh" the tree from time to time, but the tree would still have to stand.

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by shooterbrody
As the "war on terror" rages on I was wondering if a sitting states governor could refuse to send guard troops?

Perhaps there might be some confusion in the generic term “guards”. There exists two different categories of “guards”…. “State Guard” and “National Guard”.

Many states have their own volunteer militias organized and structured under the state command and not the federal government. These state guards can not be called by the federal government into service, only the applicable leadership of the state itself; usually for civil emergencies or augmentation/support of the National Guard units within the state during various emergencies.

A good example is Texas . However many states mantain a reserve of State Guards.


posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 01:21 PM
If said governor were to dicharge all "army national guard" there would still be air guard,coast guard. It is perhaps one way to get the boots on the ground over there home.

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 01:34 PM
Sure they could discharge all army national guard... leaving the air/coast/etc.... but it's not just the army national guard they're using, is it?

missed_gear, just to clarify, we're not discussing the state's guard, but thanks for pointing that out.

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 01:38 PM
Well if the states governors have options then the governors can be held accountable. It is much easier to hold governors accountable than presidents.

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 01:40 PM
The anwer is: yes and no. A Governor cannot refuse to send members of the Air National Guard or Army National Guard OVERSEAS.
The Montgomery Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 states:

a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty.

Governor Schwarzenegger of California was requested by President Bush to send National Guard soldiers for border patrol. While the Montgomery Amendment says that a Governor can't object to activation for deployment outside of the United States, it says nothing about their use within it. Therefore, the power is given to the state, allowing the Governor to refuse to comply with this request.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Johnmike]

posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 02:00 PM
The Insurrection Act of 1807, however, makes an exception. It allows the President to use soldiers "ln order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

It says:

§ 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law


(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.


The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of the authority.

It was recently changed to what is written now. Before, what is now subsection (a)(1)(A) didn't exist at all. The only powers that the president held were what is now under under subsection (a)(1)(B). Basically, it extends the President's power to use soldiers to not only disorder and lawlessness, but also in the case of "major public emergencies," including natural disaster.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Johnmike]

new topics

top topics


log in