>A little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.
>
>To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural
>disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state.
>
>A conflict over who should control Guard units arose in the days after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. President Bush sought to federalize control of Guardsmen in Louisiana in the
>chaos after the hurricane, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) refused to relinquish command.
Interesting, but invalid.
Why? Because [most of] the States have in their own constitutions language giving the control of their National Guard/militia to the governor; such an act of congress (which is NOT at the level of Constitutional Amendment) is a violation of the 5th Amendment which states in part “nor [shall a person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” and such an act is tantamount to the deprivation of the liberty of setting their own state’s law (via their State Constitution).
That is, of course, in addition to the 10th Amendment arguments against such.
State’s have constitutions...? Who nu? /sarc
Really though... this has been on the books unchallenged for a number of years now. As much as your legal logic is how it should be...it is not how it will be.