Wisconsin AB203: The National Guard and the Constitution
31. May, 2009 
18 Comments
Under the radar in most spheres until now, Wisconsin Assembly Bill 203 (introduced in April, 2009) seeks to restore a Constitutional balance to the common practice of federalizing the national guard.
AB203 “requires the governor to examine every federal order that places the Wisconsin national guard on federal active duty to determine if that order is lawful and valid. If the governor determines that the federal order is not lawful or valid, the bill requires the governor to take appropriate action, which may include commencing legal action in state or federal court, to prevent the Wisconsin national guard from being placed on federal active duty.”
The bill also “requires the governor to submit to the appropriate standing committees of the legislature a summary of the governor’s review of every federal order that places the Wisconsin national guard on federal active duty and any action he or she takes in response to that review.”
The Guard considers its charter to be the Constitution of the United States, and specifically mentions Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:
Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia — “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.” All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.
Read the full text of the Bill below:
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
AB203, s. 1
Section 1. 321.02 (3) of the statutes is created to read:
321.02 (3) The governor shall examine every federal order that places the national guard on federal active duty after the effective date of this subsection …. [LRB inserts date], to determine whether the order is lawful and valid. If the governor determines that the order is not lawful or valid, he or she shall take appropriate action to prevent the national guard from being placed on federal active duty. Appropriate action may include commencing a legal action in state or federal court to prevent the national guard from being placed on federal active duty.
The governor shall submit a report to the standing committees of the legislature with specified subject matter jurisdiction over military affairs, as provided under s. 13.172 (3), that summarizes his or her review of every order that places the national guard on federal active duty and any action he or she takes in response to that review, within 30 days after his or her review is complete.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Every state in this union ought to have a law like this. Simply going along with the ‘federal’ program just doesn’t cut it anymore (it never did, but what’s done is done.).
Good point, Terry. There’s a strong reason to follow the clear rules of the Constitution – once you start letting politicians bend the rules, even if it’s for what you think might be good reasons, eventually you’ll end up with a government that feels the rules don’t apply at all.
As I become more aware of what the constitution actually says…the more I become frustrated and disenchanted with the workings of the Federal Government. We have been asleep at the switch for too long.
As a member of the National Guard in my own home state I hold a VERY personal interest in what I have just learned! Thank you for bringing this whole issue to light.
I plan on writing my state representatives about enacting legislation like Wisconsin’s.
I think Texas has something like this already on the books. There’s a reason it’s called the “Texas Army National Guard” there. There’s already oversight from the Texas Government in place.
Jeff,
I think you’ve articulated very well the frustration that many of us have, at some point in our lives, experienced, so don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. I remember feeling the same thing years ago while reading the Federalist Papers in conjunction with the Constitution and realizing how destructive to the federal principle the fourteenth amendment was/is.
I think more and more people are becoming frustrated as they learn about the constitution. Once you know that the federal government’s powers are limited to those which are listed in the constitution and that which is necessary to carry out those listed powers – you realize that much, if not most, of what the feds do is far beyond that authorized power.
The nationalization of the guard is just one of those many constitutional abuses that has gone on for far too long.
Michael, you’re right.
Any ideas on how to go about educating more people as to what the Constitution actually says and stipulates, as opposed to what people think or speculate that it says?
Terry, I believe that question is the most essential. The key is to start out with a proper understanding – that the constitution is there as a set of limitations on government, not you and I. Then, getting the word out….
“[T]he constitution is there as a set of limitations on government, not you and I.”
Sounds like a great opening line to kick off a six-part Constitutional seminar we’re planning to have here in my neck of the woods later this summer. Yes, put me at the top of the watch-list.
As I’ve said so many times before, the fundamentals are always the most vital components to the success of any worthwhile endeavor. Also, call me a cynic, but I think that the “aged” among us comprise a rather hopeless and unteachable group, and I have any number of anecdotes to support that conclusion. Which is why I’ve turned my attention to the youth.
Well, you might be on to something there. That’s why politicians are always trying to reach the younger people. Most don’t – because they just offer more of the same. Ron Paul, on the other hand, continues to electrify the youth, because he offers the principles of liberty as enshrined in the constitution.
Looking forward to hearing more about your seminar in the near future…