Do Governors have the Constitutional authority to disobey oaths and Presidential decisions that pertain to National Security?
Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Commander in Chief clause, states that “[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
Chicago Tribune
The Chicago Tribune article titled, Wisconsin governor recalls troops from Mexico border, angering Illinois U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who was just there, reports, “he (Kinzinger) said he was sent to the border as a member of the Wisconsin National Guard and his crew caught a man crossing the border with 70 pounds of methamphetamine.”
The Purpose of This Post
Is to wonder if the USA Constitution is being violated for political reasons when a Governor disagrees with the “Commander in Chief?”
King Solomon
Obey the king’s command, I say, because you took an oath before God. (Ecclesiastes 8:2)
What’s My Point?
In a previous post titled, King Solomon, Pelosi, Trump Oath Obligations? I questioned what it means when an elected official takes an oath to obey the Constitution of the USA.
While we no longer have Kings in the USA, voter elect representatives to make decisions for our nation and take oaths in office to obey the Constitution.
This issue of withdrawing troops appears to be another example of the people elected to office who once elected ignore the oaths they take.
In My Opinion
The writers of the Constitution must be rolling in their graves. Or as CitizenTom.com stated in a comment, “there might be a systematic earthquake in the making of grave rollers” based on what our politicians’ actions and progressive interpretations of the Constitution.
If Interested
Read the Source Links below and the previous posts about taking oaths in office.
You Decide
Should President Trump issue orders to start arresting elected legislators who violate the oaths they take when they raise their right hand on the Bible?
I admit I am not a Constitution expert. However, do these examples make you wonder how much folly takes place by legislators in our Nation who do whatever they politically please regardless of the Constitution, or oaths they take, or the guise of progressive governing?
Regards and good will blogging.
Source Links
Chicago Tribune
Previous Post
Rudy u Martinka 
Gotta do your research, sir.
“Under the provisions of U.S. Code Title 10, the movement of federally funded National Guard troops is controlled by the secretary of defense. This is in effect the “federalization” of the Guard.
However, under U.S. Code Title 32, which Trump used as the basis for his proclamation, the federally funded troops remain under state control, sent only at the determination of a participating state’s governor.”
Hence, you have state governors not complying with Trump’s “request”. Completely legal given the troops were not federalized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug,
Thanks for they info. As I commented, I am not a Constitutional expert, however, it still smells to me of an oath breaking, in my opinion.
Regards and good will b logging.
LikeLike
Well, to your greater point Rudy.. being the violation of an oath of office…
Oath For Congress…
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Oath For The President…
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
So, when you’re evaluating who has violated their oaths, don’t overlook the President.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug,
No problem with the border, just 700,000 opium overdoses in USA. The 70 lbs of drugs being carried and caught by a Rep. on National Guard duty. notji g of concern to the Dems. The only thing that bothers them is Trump.
Oh, well, maybe in another 33 years after a other million more die will it be a Nationall Emergency according to the Dems and Trump haters.
Regards and goodwill blogging,
LikeLike
According to government stats the bulk of the drugs are coming in through regular ports of entry. Of course that doesn’t work to Trump’s bias’s. Besides… he’s already failed his base with the “build a concrete wall sea to shining sea” in favor of some “hole plugging” fencing. But let’s extrapolate this out a bit further to your case, Rudy. Let’s say for the sake of argument, whatever the overdoes number is, that all illegal opium entering the country is.. cut in half.. or cut entirely. Does that indicate that all those opium users will now live happily ever after? Would you be suggesting that all those users are using simply because they have fallen victim “accidentally” to the drug habit scourge?
Seems to me these folks have made some choices due to some measure of emotional distress.. mental health issues. The wide variety of what constitutes PTSD these days and abuse victimization. The stuff wouldn’t be coming into this country if there wasn’t a demand for it… or something similar. Seems to me to invest the money in controlling the NEED for it rather than just the symptom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug,
That’s the similar argument of a lot of people make who wsnt to legalize all drugs.
Gonna be a lot more deaths on the highway to add to drugs overdoses.
Oh well.
Regards and goodwill blogging
LikeLike
Pick your windmill, Rudy. Lots of ’em out there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doug,
At least he had scrupels which some people don’t, in my opinion.
Regards and goodwill blogging
LikeLike