{IN THEORY}) that sought to reduce estate taxes in order to further increase the financial gap between the poor and the rich. Due to the addition of these riders by prominent Republican Representatives, the bill was stalled out by Democrats who united to block the vote, choosing to stop the increase in the financial gap as a priority over continuing the increase with a slightly higher low end. What may appear to have been a difficult decision at the outset was made properly by Senate Democrats in defense America's poor.

Other Articles on this Story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5621400&ft=1&f=1012

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/minimumwage.ap/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics

Part 4 - Conclusions to Date

These stories set the stage for arguably the largest open struggle between the Federal and State Government since the days of the signing of the Constitution. It is important to note that during that signing, all of these issues were resolved in the designation of powers to the Federal Congress in Article 1. Further, with the passage of the 10th Amendment, the matter has been legally re

Image Credit: http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/press/2301_outreach/Bush_Guard.jpg?mii=1

Part 1 - The National Guard

Outraged at the Federal Congress's apparent will to draft and pass legislation intended to legally place control of National Guard Troops in the hands of President Bush, over 20 State Governors assembled in Charleston, South Carolina for the 3 Day, Annual Conference of the National Governors' Association to take a stand.

It is important to note right of the bat here, that this Bill would authorize George W. Bush, a man who abandoned his service to the Texas National Guard, to be in control of the National Guard forces of every state in our country, in addition to the Federal Army, Navy, Air Force, and other military resources he currently controls.

The Bill in question is titled:

The National Defense Authorization Act, and it has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. The Senate has not yet weighed in on the measure.

A large complaint brought up during the Governors' Conference suggested that the measure would eliminate the need for the Federal Government to seek permission of the State's Governor before deploying that State's Guard Troops.

This was exampled in protest from Gov. Blanco of the Hurricane Destroyed State of Louisiana. If any Governor were to support such federalization in hopes that it would aid disaster areas, Gov. Blanco would be that leader. However, Blanco's testimony offers a stunningly honest indictment of the federalization process, and witnessed her first hand experience with Federalized Disaster relief under the current Executive,

"Federalization just for the sake of federalization makes no sense, you don't need federalization to get federal troops. Just making quick decisions can make things happen."

Her testimony is evidenced by the actions of such Presidents as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter; most notably the recovery effort established by sheer force of will under Clinton post Hurricane Andrew.

This author would take this argument one step further, and outline that State Governors, directly elected by the Citizens of that state, have historically always been primarily responsible for commanding the National Guard of their State. Surely Bush would have insisted this was the case during his sitting term as Governor of Texas. Enacting the National Guard, as was done in Louisiana in the wake of Katrina, was clearly not the final solution to the recovery and disaster aid problem. This problem is currently ongoing, and is a direct result of Bush's failure to respond to the needs of the victims. I'll refer you to two other P&M Columns for daily evidence of this fact:

http://www.TransmissionsFromTheHumidCity.PowersAndMorrison.com

http://www.TheOldSarge.PowersAndMorrison.com

Other Articles on this story:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/governors-object-to-bushs-national-guard/20060806052809990003?ncid=NWS00010000000001

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GOVERNORS_GUARD?SITE=ALTAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Part 2 - The Federal Controlled Substances Act Is Unconstitutional

Image Credit:

blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/stop.jpg

AS A REMINDER:

Another contentious law involving the battle for States rights to independently legislate based upon the will of their Citizens is still capturing headlines, as Federal Agents continue to Violate California State Law in their raids of Medical Marijuana Facilities. The Federal Government is not authorized to legislate on anything not relating to unregulated sale of any substance. The Constitution is clear on the specific authorization of Federal Legislative powers in Article 1, Section 8.

The reminder is this: The Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is Unconstitutional, and has been declared so by the United States Supreme Court.

Part 3 - The Minimum Wage Debacle

In a similar battle to protect the rights of State Citizens, Governors and State Legislatures are acting independently in the wake of the failed measure to increase the Federal Minimum Wage on the State level.

The U.S. Minimum Wage Chart (Download by Right Clicking) Image Credit:

http://multi19.fortunecity.com/pay.htm#

The Bill, passed in the House of Representatives which then promptly adjourned for vacation and thereby mandated the Senate pass or reject it without further amending the bill, was stalled in the Senate. The major reason the initiative failed was due to the additions of riders (separate legislation attached to a bill to gain support of passage {IN THEORY}) that sought to reduce estate taxes in order to further increase the financial gap between the poor and the rich. Due to the addition of these riders by prominent Republican Representatives, the bill was stalled out by Democrats who united to block the vote, choosing to stop the increase in the financial gap as a priority over continuing the increase with a slightly higher low end. What may appear to have been a difficult decision at the outset was made properly by Senate Democrats in defense America's poor.

Other Articles on this Story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5621400&ft=1&f=1012

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/minimumwage.ap/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics

Part 4 - Conclusions to Date

These stories set the stage for arguably the largest open struggle between the Federal and State Government since the days of the signing of the Constitution. It is important to note that during that signing, all of these issues were resolved in the designation of powers to the Federal Congress in Article 1. Further, with the passage of the 10th Amendment, the matter has been legally res

he State's Governor before deploying that State's Guard Troops.

This was exampled in protest from Gov. Blanco of the Hurricane Destroyed State of Louisiana. If any Governor were to support such federalization in hopes that it would aid disaster areas, Gov. Blanco would be that leader. However, Blanco's testimony offers a stunningly honest indictment of the federalization process, and witnessed her first hand experience with Federalized Disaster relief under the current Executive,

"Federalization just for the sake of federalization makes no sense, you don't need federalization to get federal troops. Just making quick decisions can make things happen."

Her testimony is evidenced by the actions of such Presidents as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter; most notably the recovery effort established by sheer force of will under Clinton post Hurricane Andrew.

This author would take this argument one step further, and outline that State Governors, directly elected by the Citizens of that state, have historically always been primarily responsible for commanding the National Guard of their State. Surely Bush would have insisted this was the case during his sitting term as Governor of Texas. Enacting the National Guard, as was done in Louisiana in the wake of Katrina, was clearly not the final solution to the recovery and disaster aid problem. This problem is currently ongoing, and is a direct result of Bush's failure to respond to the needs of the victims. I'll refer you to two other P&M Columns for daily evidence of this fact:

http://www.TransmissionsFromTheHumidCity.PowersAndMorrison.com

http://www.TheOldSarge.PowersAndMorrison.com

Other Articles on this story:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/governors-object-to-bushs-national-guard/20060806052809990003?ncid=NWS00010000000001

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GOVERNORS_GUARD?SITE=ALTAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Part 2 - The Federal Controlled Substances Act Is Unconstitutional

Image Credit:

blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/stop.jpg

AS A REMINDER:

Another contentious law involving the battle for States rights to independently legislate based upon the will of their Citizens is still capturing headlines, as Federal Agents continue to Violate California State Law in their raids of Medical Marijuana Facilities. The Federal Government is not authorized to legislate on anything not relating to unregulated sale of any substance. The Constitution is clear on the specific authorization of Federal Legislative powers in Article 1, Section 8.

The reminder is this: The Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is Unconstitutional, and has been declared so by the United States Supreme Court.

Part 3 - The Minimum Wage Debacle

In a similar battle to protect the rights of State Citizens, Governors and State Legislatures are acting independently in the wake of the failed measure to increase the Federal Minimum Wage on the State level.

The U.S. Minimum Wage Chart (Download by Right Clicking) Image Credit:

http://multi19.fortunecity.com/pay.htm#

The Bill, passed in the House of Representatives which then promptly adjourned for vacation and thereby mandated the Senate pass or reject it without further amending the bill, was stalled in the Senate. The major reason the initiative failed was due to the additions of riders (separate legislation attached to a bill to gain support of passage {IN THEORY}) that sought to reduce estate taxes in order to further increase the financial gap between the poor and the rich. Due to the addition of these riders by prominent Republican Representatives, the bill was stalled out by Democrats who united to block the vote, choosing to stop the increase in the financial gap as a priority over continuing the increase with a slightly higher low end. What may appear to have been a difficult decision at the outset was made properly by Senate Democrats in defense America's poor.

Other Articles on this Story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5621400&ft=1&f=1012

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/minimumwage.ap/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics

Part 4 - Conclusions to Date

These stories set the stage for arguably the largest open struggle between the Federal and State Government since the days of the signing of the Constitution. It is important to note that during that signing, all of these issues were resolved in the designation of powers to the Federal Congress in Article 1. Further, with the passage of the 10th Amendment, the matter has been legally re

case during his sitting term as Governor of Texas. Enacting the National Guard, as was done in Louisiana in the wake of Katrina, was clearly not the final solution to the recovery and disaster aid problem. This problem is currently ongoing, and is a direct result of Bush's failure to respond to the needs of the victims. I'll refer you to two other P&M Columns for daily evidence of this fact:

http://www.TransmissionsFromTheHumidCity.PowersAndMorrison.com

http://www.TheOldSarge.PowersAndMorrison.com

Other Articles on this story:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/governors-object-to-bushs-national-guard/20060806052809990003?ncid=NWS00010000000001

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GOVERNORS_GUARD?SITE=ALTAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Part 2 - The Federal Controlled Substances Act Is Unconstitutional

Image Credit:

blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/stop.jpg

AS A REMINDER:

Another contentious law involving the battle for States rights to independently legislate based upon the will of their Citizens is still capturing headlines, as Federal Agents continue to Violate California State Law in their raids of Medical Marijuana Facilities. The Federal Government is not authorized to legislate on anything not relating to unregulated sale of any substance. The Constitution is clear on the specific authorization of Federal Legislative powers in Article 1, Section 8.

The reminder is this: The Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is Unconstitutional, and has been declared so by the United States Supreme Court.

Part 3 - The Minimum Wage Debacle

In a similar battle to protect the rights of State Citizens, Governors and State Legislatures are acting independently in the wake of the failed measure to increase the Federal Minimum Wage on the State level.

The U.S. Minimum Wage Chart (Download by Right Clicking) Image Credit:

http://multi19.fortunecity.com/pay.htm#

The Bill, passed in the House of Representatives which then promptly adjourned for vacation and thereby mandated the Senate pass or reject it without further amending the bill, was stalled in the Senate. The major reason the initiative failed was due to the additions of riders (separate legislation attached to a bill to gain support of passage {IN THEORY}) that sought to reduce estate taxes in order to further increase the financial gap between the poor and the rich. Due to the addition of these riders by prominent Republican Representatives, the bill was stalled out by Democrats who united to block the vote, choosing to stop the increase in the financial gap as a priority over continuing the increase with a slightly higher low end. What may appear to have been a difficult decision at the outset was made properly by Senate Democrats in defense America's poor.

Other Articles on this Story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5621400&ft=1&f=1012

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/minimumwage.ap/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics

Part 4 - Conclusions to Date

These stories set the stage for arguably the largest open struggle between the Federal and State Government since the days of the signing of the Constitution. It is important to note that during that signing, all of these issues were resolved in the designation of powers to the Federal Congress in Article 1. Further, with the passage of the 10th Amendment, the matter has been legally re

Law in their raids of Medical Marijuana Facilities. The Federal Government is not authorized to legislate on anything not relating to unregulated sale of any substance. The Constitution is clear on the specific authorization of Federal Legislative powers in Article 1, Section 8.

The reminder is this: The Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is Unconstitutional, and has been declared so by the United States Supreme Court.

Part 3 - The Minimum Wage Debacle

In a similar battle to protect the rights of State Citizens, Governors and State Legislatures are acting independently in the wake of the failed measure to increase the Federal Minimum Wage on the State level.

The U.S. Minimum Wage Chart (Download by Right Clicking) Image Credit:

http://multi19.fortunecity.com/pay.htm#

The Bill, passed in the House of Representatives which then promptly adjourned for vacation and thereby mandated the Senate pass or reject it without further amending the bill, was stalled in the Senate. The major reason the initiative failed was due to the additions of riders (separate legislation attached to a bill to gain support of passage {IN THEORY}) that sought to reduce estate taxes in order to further increase the financial gap between the poor and the rich. Due to the addition of these riders by prominent Republican Representatives, the bill was stalled out by Democrats who united to block the vote, choosing to stop the increase in the financial gap as a priority over continuing the increase with a slightly higher low end. What may appear to have been a difficult decision at the outset was made properly by Senate Democrats in defense America's poor.

Other Articles on this Story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5621400&ft=1&f=1012

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/minimumwage.ap/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics

Part 4 - Conclusions to Date

These stories set the stage for arguably the largest open struggle between the Federal and State Government since the days of the signing of the Constitution. It is important to note that during that signing, all of these issues were resolved in the designation of powers to the Federal Congress in Article 1. Further, with the passage of the 10th Amendment, the matter has been legally re

{IN THEORY}) that sought to reduce estate taxes in order to further increase the financial gap between the poor and the rich. Due to the addition of these riders by prominent Republican Representatives, the bill was stalled out by Democrats who united to block the vote, choosing to stop the increase in the financial gap as a priority over continuing the increase with a slightly higher low end. What may appear to have been a difficult decision at the outset was made properly by Senate Democrats in defense America's poor.

Other Articles on this Story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5621400&ft=1&f=1012

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/minimumwage.ap/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics

Part 4 - Conclusions to Date

These stories set the stage for arguably the largest open struggle between the Federal and State Government since the days of the signing of the Constitution. It is important to note that during that signing, all of these issues were resolved in the designation of powers to the Federal Congress in Article 1. Further, with the passage of the 10th Amendment, the matter has been legally resolved without question.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This Citizen will continue to assure that the voice of the United States Constitution is heard not only in the courts, but in the Press.

___________________________________________

UPDATE -- August 6th, 2006 4:23PM California Time

Senior Columnist for Powers&Morrison.com, Herb Phelps, a.k.a. The Old Sarge contributed the following pertaining to this story. It was authored by a well respected member of National Guard. The entire .doc file is posted in the sidebar for this page, here is a sample of the work:

RULES FOR THE USE OF FORCE IN DOMESTIC NATIONAL GUARD OPERATIONS

Lieutenant Colonel David S. Niss

Command Judge Advocate

95th Troop Command, MT ARNG

INTRODUCTION

The National Guard is at all times, except when called or ordered to federal active duty, a state government entity. Nowhere is the effect of this Constitutionally-derived status greater in domestic National Guard operations than with regard to state National Guard rules for the use of force [hereinafter state RUF]. U.S. Department of Defense [hereinafter DOD] policies and service regulations governing federal rules for the use of force [hereinafter federal RUF or SRUF] apply to certain elements, but not to the states. As a result, the criminal law of the state in which force is to be applied is the law that forms the basis for any RUF applicable to a state's National Guard while in any status other than federal active duty status. This article addresses the writing and application of National Guard state RUF as derived from state law and National Guard policy.