Posted on 09/07/2005 8:44:38 PM PDT by nutmeg
HARTFORD, Conn. -- A federal judge on Wednesday granted the state's request to block the federal base commission's recommendation to realign the Bradley Air National Guard Base.
U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello granted a temporary injunction to prevent the commission from including the Bradley realignment in its recommendation to President George W. Bush.
"The court is of the opinion that the governor of Connecticut would suffer significant hardship if consideration were to be withheld, as once the recommendation is submitted to the president, the governor's claim that her authority has been abrogated ... is not subject to judicial review," Covello wrote in his decision.
Connecticut officials had argued that the Pentagon cannot realign the Bradley base without the consent of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who by statute is commander in chief of the state's National Guard. The federal government argued that the commission's recommendation were not reviewable by the courts.
"To be sure, in this case there has been a past harm to the governor's right to disapprove of changes to the organization and allotment of the 103rd fighter wing," Covello wrote.
Rell said she was pleased with the ruling. "I thought the law was very clear," she said. "Our authority has been recognized."
(Excerpt) Read more at nbc30.com ...
They can keep the people there, but the Pentagon can pull the funding and all the equipment.
So I guess the court is sorta right. But it will be a funny looking National Guard Unit.
The governor can have her own air force if she wants the taxpayers of her state to pay for it.
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Better go back and check your constitution.. see if it's the same as mine..
Article 1 section 8..:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..
(Discipline: Training, instruction, conduct, punishment..)
Importantly to this conversation, is the "provide for organizing, arming and disciplining" part..
It is the constitutionally required duty of the congress to provide arms ( guns, ammo, tanks, fighter planes helicopters, artillery, missiles, etc..) to the Militia of each State..
It is not a matter of "authority" to do so.. It is required..
If the U.S. government wants fighter pilots from Connecticut, they had better d**n well "provide" for them and their training, or do without..
Do you want anyone you know going to war as a fighter pilot with no training, no flight hours, in unfamiliar planes that they have no personal experience with?
How many of those "pilots" will come back home?
Sorry to disagree, but you're wrong..
Any "National Guard" unit must be provided..
Article 1 of the Constitution is titled: "Duties of Congress".. that means these are the things the congress is required to do.. Their tasks, as it were..
Arming is specifically stated as one of those requirements..
And it is not "at the whim of the state", it is according to the type of military component that NG unit is..
Artillery units have to be armed with artillery..
Armor units with armor..
Fighter wings with fighters..
Your confusion lies in the idea that pilots can be transported to Illinois to do their training in fighter planes..
Illinois is not authorized to train the Connecticut Air National Guard.. nor is the Federal Government.
Training is the province of the Governor of CT..
Article 1 section 8.. Read it..
I may be wrong but in this re-alignment process, the US Govt IS saying they don't want fighter pilots form Conn.
As I understand the controversy, it is a matter of numbers..
Connecticut has only a few fighters at their base due to the present commitment in Iraq..
That number is less than the number considered "efficient" for maintenance..
The government's solution is to move those planes to another base, and reach a combined total of planes that is more cost-efficient for maintaining them..
I agree with the idea..
Less cost and man-hours per plane if a certain ratio is maintained.. lower budget costs..
However, I don't think they intended on getting rid of the CT ANG pilots, but having them transported in to New Jersey, or whereever the other base is..
That's unconstitutional.. If they want to use CT ANG pilots, they have to provide for training in CT.. not NJ..
They can close the base if they want, but they can't make the pilots move to NJ, and they can't use them without an airbase in CT.. ( with an exception of 2 weeks every year.. )
That's the law..
And, like I said to the other poster, there are actual constitutional requirements that have to be met..
There are federal responsibilities, and there are State's Rights..
And there is a conflict..
Quite frankly, I understand the States want the money, etc..
But they also want to maintain their power and authority..
This could become a Supreme Court case very easily..
What if the current CT pilots are not from Connecticut but fly in from out of state to drill? One does not have to be a resident of the state in which one belongs to a guard unit.
That's unconstitutional.. If they want to use CT ANG pilots, they have to provide for training in CT.. not NJ..
They can close the base if they want, but they can't make the pilots move to NJ, and they can't use them without an airbase in CT.. ( with an exception of 2 weeks every year.. )
Wanna bet? What makes me think that your point of view will not be upheld. Common sense makes me think it.
They've "trained" NG and AR in South America..
But that's all they get, except for when they "activate" them for active duty..
Do you think the Fed Gov is going to use pilots that only fly 2 weeks a year?
In multi-million dollar jets?
Wanna bet?
Wanna bet the Governor of Louisiana can keep federal troops out of New Orleans?
States have RIGHTS, and the Federal Government is granted certain "defined" Powers..
The Civil War advanced the cause of federalism, but the States still have Rights..
In fact, the States have rights not defined in the constitution..
Check out the 9th and 10th amendments..
The thing I never saw explained is why should a state pay for an Air National Guard they don't have?
I can still see where smaller states can be combined with other states to have a larger force, but major changes will have to be made.
Still the cuts are necessary. Most of these bases were set up to meet early Cold War threats. Not only have the threats changed, but today's aircraft have a longer range than even their first models. The F-22 and F-35 are going to be highly expensive compared to current aircraft.
This is an issue of Authority and Power sharing.. (and Money)
Since the States have certain constitutional protections on their side, it will have to be hashed out in Federal Courts..
Probably the Supreme Court..
We will then see if State's Rights or Federalism wins out..
The whole premise of your argument is incorrect. The National Guard is not the militia. This has been litigated a number of times. In the 80's, Dukakis tried to keep Mass. NG units from sending advisors to El Salvador. He lost in the courts. The NG is just a subdivision of the Army.
This judge is nuts. CT has no chance of winning this. If Governors continue to behave like spoiled little brats, the Feds will only reduce what influence Governors have over the NG, which is not good.
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.