Take control of the state's National Guard without the governor's authorization?
They would have to overtake the National Guard if they weren't shipped off overseas. My state has 1100 hundred N.G. soldier's in Afghanistan. National Guard is supposed to only serve in the U.S., not overseas.
[ADDED] I'm also very concerned about that fact that they can round out "undesirables". What constitutes an "undesirable"?
2007-02-02 14:54:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by amg503 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Scary isn't it. Yes that is one of the ways the German people were tricked. One thing, however, we have that they didn't Congressional oversight. While the last 3 Congresses were rubber stamp the 110th Congress is not.
Unfortunately when people don't pay attention to what is really going on (as happened in Germany between wars) that kind of thing happens. People must be vigilant every day. I don't care who is in that office watch 'em. The founding fathers didn't trust each other and that is why the balance of power exists. They knew what can happen when any one entity of the government has too much power.
2007-02-02 22:49:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is amazing.
The provision of the Act that you are referencing is giving the president the power to act to call in the guard to help restore an emergency, natural or otherwise. It is in direct response to the sorry state of events that happened after Katrina.
Dang you freaking liberals who know this and are spinning it to make it look like a power grab, and
dang you other idiots who are so blinded by your hate for Bush that you can not even take the time to apply common sense and learn anything.
Your hatred blinds you and then you look like a fool when you fall into a trap like this one that your own people set.
2007-02-02 22:54:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by bkc99xx 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
"Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
I don't see the problem. The guy who wrote this op/ed piece then goes on a rant about what he personally thinks this means, but he is clearly being biased.
2007-02-02 22:47:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
That could be a worrisome thing. I wonder how the troops would feel about being ordered to carry out such a law or, God forbid, open fire on fellow citizens
2007-02-02 22:45:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
first off the german citizens were first dis-armed...the rest is history.
answer: yes, we are now living in a police state.
2007-02-02 23:07:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by ὀκτάπους 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
nothing surprises me anymore. The only thing that could surprise me now is if he crowns himself King of America in 2009.
2007-02-02 22:45:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I didn't know, thanks. And based on a quick google, this seems to be legitimate. Scary. Just another reason to impeach the crook.
Next the cons will be saying Clinton did it too, or if it hasn't happened why worry, or the liberals are to blame for it.
2007-02-02 22:42:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by ArgleBargleWoogleBoo 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
You liberals had better watch out then! lol
2007-02-02 22:40:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋