Weekly Opinion Editorial
POKE
IN THE EYE!
by Steve
Fair
The United States National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the U.S. military reserves when activated for federal missions. The majority of National Guard members hold a civilian job full- time while serving part-time in the Guard. From the nation's founding until the early 1900s, the U.S. maintained a minimal army and relied on state militias for the majority of military troops. After the Spanish-American War, Congress was called upon to reform and regulate state militias' training. In 1903, Congress passed a bill that provides funding for National Guard troops to receive the same training as regular troops.
National Guard units can be activated for federal active duty during
times of war or in the event of a national emergency declared by Congress, the
President or the Secretary of Defense.
They can also be activated by a declaration of a state of emergency by
the governor in a state. When the
National Guard is not under federal control, the governor in the state is the
commander-in-chief for the units in their state. There are over 443,000 members of the U.S. National
Guard.
In June, President Donald Trump activated 4,000 members of the California
National Guard for 60 days to respond to violence in Los Angeles against Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Last
week, Trump federalized the National Guard in Portland, Oregon and Chicago,
Illinois to help deal with crime in those cities. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled against Trump's
action. The president has threatened to
use the 1807 Insurrection Act if federal courts continue to try and block the Guard
deployments.
On Wednesday 200 members of the Texas National Guard were sent to the
Chicago area. Texas governor Greg Abbott
supports the move. Oklahoma governor Kevin
Stitt doesn't. In an interview with the
New York Times, Stitt condemned the deployment of National Guard troops across
state lines. “Oklahomans would lose
their mind if Governor Pritzker in Illinois sent troops down to Oklahoma during
the Biden administration,” Stitt said.
Three observations:
First, Trump's action stepped on toes.
Stitt is right-most Okies would go nuts if National Guard troops from a
blue state were sent to the Sooner state.
Trump knew using Texans in the Chicago deployment would make the
Sand-hillers mad. While the president
has the authority to deploy National Guard troops at his discretion, it would
probably have been wise to use the troops from the state of Illinois. The problem is Illinois Governor Pritzker has
avoided dealing with crime in his state and left Trump little choice but to
bring in carpetbagger troops.
Second, Trump's action is divisive.
The president has the authority to activate troops and send them to other
states. Other presidents have done it
during times of national emergencies.
President George W. Bush sent National Guard troops from throughout the
country to Louisiana during Katrina. But Trump's action was an intentional poke in Pritzker's
eye. He could have used Illinois troops,
but decided otherwise.
Third, the federal government is always trying to undermine state rights. The 10th amendment in the U.S. Constitution says:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.” For decades, the
federal government usurped the authority of states. However, since
the Supreme Court has taken more 'originalist' interpretation of the Constitution,
many issues like abortion and gun control have been pushed back to the states. Trump's action sends the opposite message.
Governor Stitt is Chairman of the National Governor's Association (NGA), a non-partisan group. His remarks were the first criticism about the deployments from a sitting GOP governor. Several Democratic governors had threatened to leave the group if the NGA did not condemn the interstate use of troops. Stitt said that wasn't why he spoke against Trump's action. Stitt is right. Republicans would have condemned President Biden had he done what President Trump has done. You shouldn't have rules for thee, but not for me.
1 comment:
Steve, your entire argument, which focuses on Governor Stitt’s feelings about the National Guard deployment, fundamentally confuses political optics with constitutional authority.
The President's power to deploy federalized forces, including National Guard units from any state, is an enumerated power established under Article II. The mission was explicitly to protect federal personnel and property (like ICE agents or courthouses). The Tenth Amendment, which reserves non-delegated powers to the states, does not suddenly grant a state immunity when the federal government is fulfilling its own, clear-cut constitutional duty to enforce national law. A state cannot use "states' rights" as a shield when it is unwilling or unable to maintain the basic order required for federal agents to operate.
Furthermore, the idea that the President should have used Illinois troops but was blocked by Governor Pritzker is irrelevant to the President's authority. The source of the troops is a tactical matter, not a constitutional one. Suggesting the deployment was merely a "poke in the eye" prioritizes political feelings over the duty to maintain law and order. You are arguing that to avoid being "divisive," a president should let unrest targeting federal institutions continue. That sets a dangerous precedent that would equally handcuff any future administration, regardless of party.
Finally, you invoke the principle: "You shouldn't have rules for thee, but not for me." I agree with you, Steve, but that rule applies to your argument. This sudden, impassioned defense of the Tenth Amendment conveniently appears only when a Republican president’s action is politically awkward for other Republicans. If a Democratic president failed to act in this manner, your critique would demand the federal government step in to restore order, not praise the governor for defending states' rights. Your concern is not about consistent constitutional fidelity; it's about political expediency and protecting a partisan narrative.
Post a Comment