Governors oppose radical National Guard plan.

On August 1, 24 members of the National Governors Association sent a letter of protest to the House Committee on Armed Services. The strongly worded letter was a reaction to a provision of a bill that would allow the president to seize control of the National Guard without gubernatorial consent. The controversial bill, part of the National Defense Authorization Act, would permit the president to federalize National Guard units in the event of "a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe that occurs in the United States, its territories and possessions, or Puerto Rico." The proposal, born of the chaos following the Hurricane Katrina disaster, was passed in the House but awaits Senate approval.

The radical proposal is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which expressly prohibits the president from mobilizing state National Guards without the consent of Congress. The unabashed attempt to deny the constitutional responsibility of state governments led governors to question the necessity of the provision. "The current process works quite well," wrote the governors in their August missive. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, a Republican, said, "The idea of federalizing yet another function of government in America is a, the wrong direction, and b, counterproductive." He failed to mention that it was also unconstitutional.

Others, however, were quick to note the true unconstitutional nature of the proposal. Oregon gubernatorial candidate Mary Starrett, a Constitution Party candidate, said, "This increasing centralization of power in Washington, D.C., is in direct conflict with our constitutional principles of limiting the power of the federal government and keeping power in the hands of the states." President Bush's attempt to seize authority normally shared with the states is yet another example of his ongoing agenda to gain complete control of military mobilization.