It is usually the Governors who are in charge of the National Guard in their respective states. Why would Bush want to put them under his command instead and make his office more powerful. Is it just the border issue or is there a hidden agenda?
2006-08-31 17:55:53 · 6 answers · asked by choyryu 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Actually, the Constitution gives the authority over the National Guard to Congress (Article I Section 8) to call them into federal service as part of the military.
Once Congress calls the National Guard to military service, they are under the command of the chief executive.
2006-08-31 18:02:56 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The president already has it within his power to activate the Guard. Take Iraq and Afghanistan for example, the state govenors did not randomly decide to send their troops overseas. They were federalized and deployed. And according to the Costitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the military to include active forces and the militia (or the National Guard).
2006-08-31 18:04:24 · answer #2 · answered by royalrunner400 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The feds already have the power to activate the guard. ( I was a Guardsman) Anything they are doing now is just shuffling financial responsibility.
2006-08-31 17:57:59 · answer #3 · answered by sshazzam 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hidden agenda
http://kutv.com/video/?id=18850@kutv.dayport.com
2006-08-31 17:57:42 · answer #4 · answered by Kikka 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is because he wants them at his disposal. I doubt that he will be able to handle it, though. His office and cabinet cannot even handle the active duty people right.
2006-08-31 18:00:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He isn't doing anything that he isn't allowed to do. They are just making a fuss about it now because its an election year.
2006-08-31 18:03:44 · answer #6 · answered by Michael 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋