English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I mean is it safe for Bush to have control of the National Guard in emergencies without consent of governors?

2006-08-06 10:23:00 · 12 answers · asked by Skadi and shadows 2 in Politics & Government Government

12 answers

What are you talking about? Bush IS the National Guard's Commander-in-Chief!

Perhaps you should attempt to become a bit more "informed" prior to composing a question before you know all the facts.

2006-08-06 10:28:50 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

This is an unconstitutional move on the part of the president. We all know that the national guard is the state's militia and thus only under state control Sorry SS but you are wrong. The governor of that state is the commander-in-chief of the national guard. The only time that the president is given direct control over the national guard is if they are called up for overseas action.

2006-08-06 10:40:12 · answer #2 · answered by Kelly H 2 · 0 0

The Army, Air Force and Navy National Guards can be drafted into the national Army, Air Force and Navy during times of crisis. Those are the ones he's talking about. There -is- a difference between those and the ones that start with a state name. State militias, last time I checked there were six or so, can't be drafted into national service despite the fact that their name also involves the words "national guard".

Also, his plan won't work. When has anything Bush thought of actually worked?

2006-08-06 10:29:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

S S: Each states national guard is under the command of the governor of that state until they are 'Nationalized'. That is a fancy term for called into federal service. The only plan I've heard President Bush announce for the national guard is a request for the governors to sent them to the border.

Kelly H: you list the constitution as your source. Please be more specific, I didn't see that in the copy I keep next to my computer.

2006-08-06 12:38:28 · answer #4 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0 0

ABSOLUTELY, Approximately 1/2 of the governors are democrats, and don't want to agree with the president on anything. Also, they are inept when it comes to knowing what to do in an emergency. Just take Louisiana, when Katrina hit, that Governor didn't have a clue, did nothing for 2 days, then blamed it all on Bush. HA! She's like a lot of other democrats, only wants to cause trouble for our President, hence our Country.

2006-08-06 10:30:18 · answer #5 · answered by Dog Mama 4 · 0 0

Yes its safe for President Bush to have control over the national Guard. He should have pulled the reins aways from that blithering idiot, incompetent, inept, moron governor Blanco sooner. That is why its sometimes necessary to override them.
Most states are competent, so it would not be necessary.

2006-08-06 10:31:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, this was a power grab and it was handled without even asking the governors for their input. This would rob states of guardsmen -- likely as a draft of sorts for service abroad -- leaving them without the men and women around to handle a national disaster.

2006-08-06 10:28:17 · answer #7 · answered by parttimerascal 2 · 0 0

Holy Cow....this coming from the same people who complained that Bush should have sent in the Guard after Katrina. You people want it both ways....blame Bush when its convenient, and then criticize him when its convenient......you liberals are blinded by your own dumbness.

2006-08-06 10:31:30 · answer #8 · answered by jpxc99 3 · 0 0

It in basic terms handle the administrative branch. the only connection with Congress is in the line "(e) "Enduring Constitutional government," or "ECG," ability a cooperative attempt between the administrative, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, coordinated by using the President, as a be counted of comity with appreciate to the legislative and judicial branches and with suited appreciate for the constitutional separation of powers between the branches, to maintain the constitutional framework decrease than which the country is ruled and the aptitude of all 3 branches of government to execute constitutional household initiatives and supply for orderly succession, perfect transition of management, and interoperability and help of the nationwide mandatory applications throughout a catastrophic emergency;" style of annoying to get cooperation from somebody you instructed to take a hike.

2016-10-01 13:26:13 · answer #9 · answered by bhuwan 4 · 0 0

NO.NO, NO!! I don't want Bush in charge of anything! He says it's for storm's, but I suspect they would be misused! Just think if he turned them on us!

2006-08-06 10:27:24 · answer #10 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers