The Nov. 5 edition of Stars and Stripes reported that President Obama is considering renewed military assistance to Iraq.
After a White House meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Obama said he shares al-Maliki’s fears about militants’ growing foothold in Iraq’s western province and will join the Iraqi leader’s effort to crack down. Administration officials said this would include growing intelligence support and new weaponry.
At present, there is no open discussion of sending troops back to Iraq, but clearly it’s a possibility. With few U.S. troops available, this would likely require the federal government to push the National Guard back into service.
So, what’s wrong with that?
Recall that each state retains sovereignty except for powers delegated, and the Union (federal government) is subject to its creator – the people of the states. When the feds demand the use of our state militias to fight unconstitutional foreign wars, it is akin to the United Nations forcing its members to fight under its will and direction, an obvious overreach of U.N. authority. The National Guard was intended to serve as a defense force, not an offensive weapon in foreign lands.
The U.S. has not fought under a legitimate declaration of war since WWII. One power the people of the states retain is control over their own National Guard. They can refuse to allow its use in unconstitutional military missions.
Nullification provides a remedy for halting the use of our states’ militias in foreign wars. This proposed bill is a state solution giving the governor the power to refuse to allow the federal government to nationalize its state national guard except for constitutional purposes including: defense of our borders, insurrection or enforcement of constitutional federal laws.
If you want to make serious progress toward nullifying our foreign adventures, this is a bill you can recommend to your state representatives.
We do have the power.