Oklahoma’s five congressmen have a disagreement with Gov. Henry over how much authority the federal government has over each state’s National Guard.

As they approach crucial November elections, governors from both parties blame the Republican-led Congress and White House for a widening chasm between the federal government and the states.

The latest provocation, cited by governors here at an annual gathering of the National Governors Association (NGA), is a provision passed recently by the U.S. House of Representatives that would give the president greater authority to mobilize state-based National Guard units without consent from the governors.

If governors actually do “blame the Republican-led Congress and White House”, they are not seeing the bigger picture. First of all, only 17 Democrats out of 201 voted against passage of the legislation that passed with a grand total of 407 yea votes. Is there any reason to think a Democrat-led Congress would have made a difference? It’s not about partisan politics, it’s about federalism. And Congress favors it. Almost to a tee.

The thing is, National Guards are not really state militias anymore as some may believe. Congress has long taken ever more control of the states’ Guard units.

The National Defense Act of 1916 (June 3, 1916, ch. 134, 39 Stat. 166) separated the Army, the reserves, and the militia and “federalized” the National Guard.
-
Since 1933 federal law has provided that persons enlisting in a state National Guard unit simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, a part of the Army. The enlistees retain their status as state National Guard members unless and until ordered to active federal duty and revert to state status upon being relieved from federal service.

What surprises me is that governors seem to think they still do have control of their Guard units.

Today, the Federal Government owns the arms and military property of the National Guard, and if there was any doubt about the National Guard being Federal, Little Rock (1957) settled that. The President “ordered” the National Guard into Federal service over call of the Governor. And, during the 1980’s Federal training in Central America was ordered over the objections of certain Governors.

And how’s that working?

According to the Defense Department itself, two-thirds of the Guard’s 34 brigades are not rated as “combat ready.”

Perhaps it’s time to revisit state militias.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …

To provide an Army is a Federal function [Article I 8 12]. However, “security” is more than war making. The Militia is to be used in law enforcement, a posse comitatus function. Militia could be called out to keep the peace or execute government precepts. Since the Post Civil War reconstruction era, the U.S. Army has been prohibited from internal law enforcement. The “state” is basic government, with primary police powers.

… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

This phrase completes the text of the Second Amendment. Whatever the “right of the people” is, it shall not be infringed. The Courts have recognized that the Federal Government is not to infringe upon the state Militia, the collective right of the state.

What used to be state militias – the National Guard – has almost completely transformed into a federal army, now used as an occupational force in nation building, contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Oklahomans should consider joining other states in establishing a State Defense Force.

The federal government recognizes State Defense Forces under 32 USC 109 which provides that State Defense Forces “may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces” (of the United States), thus preserving their separation from the National Guard.

Although every state has laws authorizing State Defense Forces, approximately twenty-five states, in addition to Puerto Rico, currently have active State Defense Forces, each with different levels of activity, state support, and strength. SDF’s generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions.

Sounds like something every state could use. No matter what congress says.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 15th, 2006 at 9:11 am and is filed under Editorials. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.