Posted on 08/24/2005 3:45:54 PM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON - Tennessee Congressional Democrats are backing Gov. Phil Bredesen in his lawsuit to stop the Defense Department from moving a Nashville-based airlift wing's planes to bases elsewhere in the country.
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee won't join them, saying a Bredesen victory would undermine the Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure process.
At issue is the Pentagon's recommendation to strip the 118th Airlift Wing of equipment and personnel, including its C-130 transport planes, which would be relocated to Kentucky, Illinois and Texas.
Bredesen's suit argues it is against federal law for an Air National Guard unit to be relocated or withdrawn from a state without consent or approval from the governor.
Democratic representatives Jim Cooper, Lincoln Davis, Bart Gordon and Harold Ford Jr. filed a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday in support of the governor.
"There must be no doubt, no nuance, no shades of gray when it comes to chains of military command, whether they run from George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, or Philip N. Bredesen, Commander in Chief of the Tennessee National Guard," the brief says.
"The recommendations from the BRAC Commission don't make sense," Gordon said in a statement. "Cutting personnel and removing aircraft at the 118th Airlift Wing do nothing to strengthen our military."
But Frist opposes Bredesen's move, arguing the unit should be protected, but only through the BRAC process.
"He sympathizes with the governor's lawsuit but is concerned that if successful it will greatly undermine BRAC, keeping our military from becoming as effective and efficient as possible," said Frist spokesman Nick Smith.
The reason for BRAC is that Congress doesn't have the balls to do this themselves.
The states do, unless federalized in time of war.
Technically, we are not in a declared war.
Complex, is it not?
What exactly does he back??
funny how in the end, Congress has to vote on it then huh?
Funny also, how Congress probably would make a complete hash of it, as all of our military bases would be in California, NY and Florida....
one big base, one big boom and we would be done.
you will notice that this is coming from the Pentagon, which is those that SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CLOSE AND SHUT DOWN BASES.
it is...
If I were the Pentagon, I would make it very simple for the Governor...
you can keep your base, but you gotta pay for it. as it appears that is the argument, call their bluff.....
The soldiers and airmen have shown to protect the US, not just Tennessee....
it is very complex yes....
Do they?
I do know that the starts already pay part of the cost for state national guard units, but I am sure it is a fraction.
well in Ohio, the state pays most of it, or at least they did....i have been out for a while.
anyway, the Feds generally pick it up when the units are activated (Federal disaters, wars, etc). But there is also probably a matrix out there about which unit is doing what.
As there is an air asset here, are they flying CAP missions over the US? That would be a Federal thing.
Don't know about that, but the National Guard was created by FedGov, with armories, supposedly out of state militias to quell the riots of 1873-77 and they were never returned to the states. Can a state militia be compelled to march across state lines? Maybe not, but the National Guard can. Like everything else FedGov does, this is something the People demanded, Beard notwithstanding.
yep
I know that pretty much every month in the summer when I was in the Ohio National Guard, we were NEVER in Ohio. We were either in Indiana or Michigan.
Of course this had a lot to do with the fact that you couldn't shoot artillery rounds in the state of Ohio....
I wonder if the air guard unit has a federal mission or if it is just a drilling unit. It really SOUNDS as if it has a federal mission involved here. I don't know if I am being clear on the distinction
But...If I were a GOV, had paid for the planes, paid most of the salary/upkeep cost, and the FED said the planes were being given to another state - I would object,also.
Of course, all of that may be wrong.
But it does seem like honest grounds for a lawsuit.
>> It is an interesting state's rights issue - who owns the national guard? The states do, unless federalized in time of war.
I believe the National Guard was created under the federal power to raise armies, rather than under the militia act. If so, the governor(s) lawsuit(s) have no foundation.
When it comes to liberal Dimocraps, SOME excessive military spending is OK. They never let an opportunity to reduce government cost slip by - without opposition.
My very limited knowledge on this issue tells me one of the things to be hoped for is by closing given bases, and not supposedly lossing monies (better then breaking even) for relocation of personel and equipment and support, that monies will be freed up to invest in other areas that will supposedly help enhance our ground/air/sea fighting capabilities. Example new, and or improved weapon systems and perhaps raising salary scales. Quite generic examples and I will leave it go at that. But it is interesting as to National Guard facilities being relocated out of given state. If it is against the law then why is it even being considered. Lastly, I for one wish not one base had to be closed. Obviously many good people are going to have to close business etc.. The after affects are often brutal. How many new shopping centers for instance does a town need that has to many to begin with and will have to consider more to fill the base space up. Lot of tough calls to be made.
we shall see I think....
it all depends on who was cutting the checks.
My guess is that the Feds bought the equipment, the states pay for them to drill....
Again, I think the question is suffuciently complex and cloudy that a good court case is in order.
And, NB - it goes straight to the USSC - as all cases of state-vs-state or state-vs-FED do.
So, at least, it will be interesting.
Interesting.
well if they fly f-15s or anything like that, you better believe the Feds paid for them..
I don't know about fuel, but weaponry most definitely...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.