Cross-posted from the Tenth Amendment Center
Under the radar in most spheres until now, Wisconsin Assembly Bill 203 (introduced in April, 2009) seeks to restore a Constitutional balance to the common practice of federalizing the national guard.
AB203 “requires the governor to examine every federal order that places the Wisconsin national guard on federal active duty to determine if that order is lawful and valid. If the governor determines that the federal order is not lawful or valid, the bill requires the governor to take appropriate action, which may include commencing legal action in state or federal court, to prevent the Wisconsin national guard from being placed on federal active duty.”
The bill also “requires the governor to submit to the appropriate standing committees of the legislature a summary of the governor’s review of every federal order that places the Wisconsin national guard on federal active duty and any action he or she takes in response to that review.”
The Guard considers its charter to be the Constitution of the United States, and specifically mentions Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:
Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia — “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.” All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.
Read the full text of the Bill below:
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
AB203, s. 1
Section 1. 321.02 (3) of the statutes is created to read:
321.02 (3) The governor shall examine every federal order that places the national guard on federal active duty after the effective date of this subsection …. [LRB inserts date], to determine whether the order is lawful and valid. If the governor determines that the order is not lawful or valid, he or she shall take appropriate action to prevent the national guard from being placed on federal active duty. Appropriate action may include commencing a legal action in state or federal court to prevent the national guard from being placed on federal active duty.
The governor shall submit a report to the standing committees of the legislature with specified subject matter jurisdiction over military affairs, as provided under s. 13.172 (3), that summarizes his or her review of every order that places the national guard on federal active duty and any action he or she takes in response to that review, within 30 days after his or her review is complete.
10 comments ↓
I see this as a huge step for peace. If people start resisting these wars on a state by state level, we’re going to have a much better chance of ending it than by begging and waiting for federal politicians to do something right.
Lets hear it for Wisconsin. The Iraqi War was misrepresented to the American people as a moral obligation to freedom and the Guard was pressed into service because of the limited time to repel the enemy from our shores.
The reason for the war was a lie and the reason to use the guard instead of initiating a draft was also just another lie.
When we let the Executive effectively dismiss the House and Senate as equals in Governance or checks and balances if you will, what we in effect did was appoint the Executive as a Quasi -Dictator.
The harm that such action caused is evident today to everyone except the die hard Republican know-nothings. I find the
Quote from Plato especially Germain to this issue:
“But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; – because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom; and therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both: and I made an answer to myself and to the oracle that I was better off as I was.”
Sometimes we just have to act for ourselves because our leaders are not going to do it for us.
I think this is an incredible idea. We vote the bums out every few years and we just get new bums that need to be voted out. Cliff, you’re right – we just have to act for ourselves…
This is an excellent idea and it appears to be legally sound. Now if only, for a major change, we could IMPLEMENT the plan rather than just talk about it online endlessly until it quietly fades away like so many others have!
I think this is a really great idea too. It’s something more than just talking about it like Jerry says – it’s taking action where we can at least have a chance of getting something done. in the states.
Then let us see what are the constraints that prevent us from acting for ourselves:
1) Neither of the Two Parties want this because they have the smarts to see that it would end their dominance of the people.
2) State Judges usually have to run for office, meaning they are political and since there are no viable parties other than the big two, guess who gets to decide who the candidates are.
So I have suggested getting rid of one of the Two. I have suggested shunning the Republican Party out of existence, i. e.
pledge to never vote for a Republican Candidate again.
Why is it so difficult to get people to do this? Party Loyalty. The people have become ingrained with Party Loyalty and will defend the worst of political criminals if they are their own party.
The reason I have chosen the Republicans is they are weaker right now and those who think that this would give the Democrats free reign need to think again. Without the chance of being elected if running as a Republican, those good Republicans who favor America over Party will seek those who think like themselves and their are 135 Independent Parties to choose from.
Why won’t the Democrats gain? Because they will be smart enough to understand that the ability to rid themselves of one half of the problem, the people will know how to get rid of the other half.
To ever get relief we must remove the Two Party System from Washington.
Now if people are going to shun one party out of existence, will the remaining party risk the penalty for not representing the people? I don’t think they will, but if they do we will know what to do.
I believe we should remove the 2 party system. In fact I believe it so much I am running for US Senate in WI on the Constitution Party Rob Taylor
Good for you Rob. I checked our State for Registered Parties back about a year and a half ago ( I contacted all the registered Parties ) and I checked to see what was required to get a party registered in my state.
By the way, what is it with this ( Time has expired – go back and log-in ). When I did the requested Log-in, 3/4 of what I had written was no longer there to post. So I posted as is, too much trouble to go back and re-write the thing.
It would be nice if the states would take charge of their NG units again. I was just remembering, I suppose a science fiction story, where the government had become a dictatorship and the people started to rebel. The government activated the National Guard to quell the insurrection. The first thing they did was move the units to another state from their own so they would not be faced with the necessity of killing their own friends and relatives, and would not be induced to join them. The idea was to use them against "strangers" so they would not tend to question what they were doing.
I think that is science fiction, isn't it? Isn't it??
Leave a Comment