N&O Editorial: Governor on Guard

Let’s hope members of Congress were listening to Governor Easley, in addition to the few who bothered to attend a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where he spoke about the need to strip away a change to the Insurrection Act. Congress, it seems, last year amended the act, which dates to the 1800s, to expand the powers of the president to “federalize” the National Guard during terrorist attacks, natural disasters, disease outbreaks and other such crises.

Sen. John Warner, the Virginia Republican, said he wrote the amendment and had the good intention of making it simpler for the president to coordinate the Guard in emergencies. Warner noted that no one in Congress seemed to object at the time. Indeed, it appears that members were simply asleep at the switch.

Anyway, this is where Easley came in. He had the support of 49 other governors in telling senators that control of the Guard in domestic situations should remain with governors. (The president can, of course, mobilize the Guard for war, and many Guard units have served in Iraq.)

Giving the president the authority provided in this amendment could mean “confusion and an inability to respond to residents’ needs,” Easley said. That’s because states have detailed plans about how to respond with the Guard in certain emergencies such as natural disasters or riots. “If the president reaches in and takes this away from us,” the governor said, “then our whole plan collapses.”

Two senators present, Republican Kit Bond of Missouri and Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont, blasted the amendment. Bond called it “dumb,” among other things.

It would have been better, of course, if senators and representatives had been paying attention before they passed the measure instead of needing to have the problems with it spelled out for them later. The amendment should be removed, and Easley deserves credit for well-articulating the problem.