Governors Resist Administration’s National Guard Power Grab

Since the founding of the American Republic, the National Guard has been under the command of the governor of the state from which each unit hails. The National Defense Authorization Act as passed by the House of Representatives and which is currently in conference committee with members of the Senate, would give the president the authority to command the Guard in the even of a natural disaster or a threat to American territory. This miserable idea would concentrate even more power in the Oval Office at the expense of the federal system.

This morning, 51 governors of various US states and territories from both parties will send a letter to the conference committee demanding that this wretched language get dropped from the final version of the bill. The letter says, “This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors as commanders and chief of the Guard to the federal government.”

Two weeks ago, the National Governor’s Association (an unofficial body made up of the various governors) discovered this provision, and last week, the membership agreed to work to remove the clause. David Quam, NGA director of federal relations, stated, “Any effort to take that authority away from governors at the very least confuses the chain of command and at the worst could severely hamper state efforts to respond to emergencies.” Arkansas’s Republican governor, Mike Huckabee, the outgoing NGA chairman, was less circumspect. He flatly said it “violates 200 years of American history.”

The Bush White House has spent almost its entire time in office trying to enhance the powers of the presidency at the expense of every other center of power, including one might add, the people. Under the theory of the “unitary presidency,” they have argued that the president may do as he wishes, from establishing secret prisons to holding people without charge to voiding laws as passed by Congress with signing statements. None of that would be as unpalatable if the current president were up to the job, but the man is incompetent. More power in his hands merely means more opportunity for failure.

That said, even a president who was equal parts Washington, Cincinnatus and Pericles shouldn’t have the sort of power the Busheviks demand for their blunder-kid. Such a man with the entire National Guard apparatus under his control could succumb to the temptation to use the power he held. As the Romans always wondered, “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Or more insightfully, “would you buy a used car from this man?” Then, why trust him with the National Guard?

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home