President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors

[Surf n Turf]

I figured that Posse Comitatus would be on the agenda. I know that there are big holes in the act, but I wonder if this is the repeal
SnT

President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors

Executive Order will Strengthen Further Partnership Between the Federal and State and Local Governments to Better Protect Our Nation

The President today signed an Executive Order (attached) establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards.
The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms.
When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council.

From the EO
Sec. 2. Functions
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-establishing-council-governors

Executive Order
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2010executive_order.pdf

[Paslode]

The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms.

We'll have to wait and see how he stacks this deck, but based on the CZAR's, his idea of transparency and his agenda I don't hold out too much hope of it being fair, balanced or in the best interest of the people.

[Ret10Echo]

We'll have to wait and see how he stacks this deck, but based on the CZAR's, his idea of transparency and his agenda I don't hold out too much hope of it being fair, balanced or in the best interest of the people.

The E.O. stipulates that no one political party will have a majority. 5 of each and the co-chairs will be a Dim and Rep. (caveat to this is that they are appointed, therefore politics will reign supreme as always.) It will be interesting to see where the representation falls. I am sure the smaller States will be left out in the cold, but we will see.

Seems more of a formalized relationship of the National Governor's Association (http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.b14a675ba7f89cf9e8ebb856a11010a0) with the Executive Branch.

Anything that comes out of Washington is suspect (as it should be), but this seems to provide a direct link for States into the Fed. Is that bad?

[Sten]

We'll have to wait and see how he stacks this deck, but based on the CZAR's, his idea of transparency and his agenda I don't hold out too much hope of it being fair, balanced or in the best interest of the people.


Did you read this part?

Section 1. Council of Governors.
(a)
There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed bythe President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.
(b)
The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve asCo-Chairs of the Council.

[HowardCohodas]

of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party

Things that make you say hmmm... Does this leave the president open to mischief by appointing an independent who caucuses with his party?

[rubberneck]

I can think of several Republican Governors who might as well be Democrats so it can be tilted ideologically while remaining bi-partisan.

[Ret10Echo]

I can think of several Republican Governors who might as well be Democrats so it can be tilted ideologically while remaining bi-partisan.

Agree 100%.

But that which is born of the E.O. may die by the E.O.

We will see how much the "travel" involved costs us...and I'm not sure there are a lot of Govenors right now who can afford (fiscally and politically) to be distracted from their home State issues.

I would however like to step forward and volunteer the Govenor of Maryland to a position on the council. Perhaps he can be sent to Alaska for a very, very long time.

[Paslode]

Anything that comes out of Washington is suspect (as it should be), but this seems to provide a direct link for States into the Fed. Is that bad?


That depends on what the payoffs (if any....a Cornhusker clause) are.

The way I look at, Zero is likely to appoint folks that he feels he and his Administration can work with (manipulate). Another question one might consider is why we need a Obama appointed panel with limited participation when we already have a Governors Association which has a frame work and covers all 50 states.

Good or bad the end result is likely to be that the added bureaucracy will lead to a situation of no one knows what hand is doing what, who to call or who is responsible for what. And secondly as someone mentioned the smaller states may get the raw end of the stick.

[Ret10Echo]

That depends on what the payoffs (if any) are.

A sad reflection on the lack of public trust and confidence in elected officials...of any level.

We are all pretty confident that there is going to be some sort of payoff, earmark or entitlement associated with this. We the People assume that we end up being screwed.

[Paslode]

A sad reflection on the lack of public trust and confidence in elected officials...of any level.

We are all pretty confident that there is going to be some sort of payoff, earmark or entitlement associated with this. We the People assume that we end up being screwed.

Unfortunately they have a overwhelming and persisting track record to lead to such assumptions, educated guesses and conclusions.

I would be far less pessimistic if say Obama said I would like a Governors Advisory Panel and I want the Governors Assoc. to send me the participants. The guidelines would be that all 50 Governors vote as to who will represent them and every region must be represented.

It isn't fool proof, but it would be far less likely Obama gets to pick and choose for whom he gets to deal with. Better yet limit participation based on State fiscal stability.

[JJ_BPK]

President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors

The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms.

Federal members of the Council include

Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Homeland Security
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs
U.S. Northern Command Commander
Commandant of the Coast Guard
Chief of the National Guard Bureau.


The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council.


Why will 10 state Governors report to the Defense Department,, Comrades???

Posse Comitatus is out the door...

[Richard]

Why will 10 state Governors report to the Defense Department,, Comrades??? Posse Comitatus is out the door...

...meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice...

I hardly think so - doesn't look as if anybody reports to anybody there - it's a Council to exchange views, information, or advice for:

- (a) matters involving the National Guard of the variousStates;
- (b) homeland defense;
- (c) civil support;
- (d) synchronization and integration of State and Federalmilitary activities in the United States; and
- (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining toNational Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

Richard

[Ret10Echo]

Why will 10 state Governors report to the Defense Department,, Comrades???

Posse Comitatus is out the door...


Barring Title 10 action it has not applied to NGB elements anyhow. From a military standpoint I look to our National Guard brethren on how this all sounds. At the call of the SECDEF and to provide views, information, or advice.....

My impression is that the Govenors are not very quick to give up their assets.

This includes the following forms of active service:
o State Active Duty (SAD). The Governor can activate National Guard personnel to “State Active Duty” in response to natural or man-made disasters or Homeland Defense missions. State Active Duty is based on State statute and policy as well as State funds, and the Soldiers and Airmen remain under the command and control of the Governor. A key aspect of this duty status is that the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) does not apply.
o Title 32 Full-Time National Guard Duty. “Full-time National Guard duty” means training or other duty, other than inactive duty, performed by a member of the National Guard. Title 32 allows the Governor, with the approval of the President or the Secretary of Defense, to order a member to duty for operational HLD activities IAW the United States Code (USC):
The key to state active service is that Federal Law provides the Governor with the ability to place a soldier in a full-time duty status under the command and control of the State but directly funded with Federal dollars. Even though this duty status is authorized by Federal statute, this section is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act; the Governor may use the Guard in a law enforcement capacity; and the chain of command rests within the State.

[Surf n Turf]

Looks like our friends north of the border have picked up on the EO
Richard, Was it you who "tipped-off" the Canadians :D
SnT

American Republic replaced by “Council of Governors”?
Canadian Free Press
Quietly—even stealthily—in the opening days of the New Year, President Barack Obama has set up a “Council of Governors”.

Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people’s nor the congress’s blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal.

“Is this a first step towards Martial Law, or a tie to the InterPol, RAND National Police Force stuff we’ve been hearing about,” asked a Texas patriot who tipped off Canada Free Press (CFP) after finding news of the new Council of Governors on Twitter. “Is this a sort of Homeland Security Politburo?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18890

[Surf n Turf]

In the study the authors talk about “foreign operations”, but feel constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act (rotation / downtime). Something does not compute –
SnT

A Stability Police Force for the United States
Establishing security is the sine qua non of stability operations, since it is a prerequisite for reconstruction and development. Security requires a mix of military and police forces to deal with a range of threats from insurgents to criminal organizations. This research examines the creation of a high-end police force, which the authors call a Stability Police Force (SPF). The study considers what size force is necessary, how responsive it needs to be, where in the government it might be located, what capabilities it should have, how it could be staffed, and its cost. This monograph also considers several options for locating this force within the U.S. government, including the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Secret Service, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) in the Department of State, and the U.S. Army's Military Police.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG819/

RAND STUDY
This project investigates the need for a U.S. Stability Police Force, the
major capabilities it would need if created, where in the federal government
it would best be headquartered, and how it should be staffed. In
doing so, it considers options based in the Departments of Defense,
Homeland Security, Justice, and State. The project was conducted
for the U.S. Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute
(PKSOI).
The MP Corps has the opposite problem: it has the capacity to
take on the task, and arguably it has the skills due to its efforts in Iraq
and Afghanistan. However, its ability to maintain these skills during
periods when it is not engaged in large-scale stability operations is constrained
by the limits placed on its ability to perform civilian policing
functions by the Posse Comitatus Act. Without relief from this constraint, it could not take advantage of the opportunities provided by the hybrid staffing option to develop and maintain the needed skills.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG819.pdf

[Richard]

MOO - but it seems pretty obvious that our North American neighbors to the North of our border understand our ways no better than do so many of our own citizens.

And so it goes...

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

[nmap]

Isn't it interesting that the various players perceive a need to have some sort of stability police force? The last time we had a major failure of a police force was during Katrina, was it not? It seems like a rare event.

So it may be that this is simply something to do for those involved - a sort of toy. But I wonder...what if the present faux recovery is even more weak and vulnerable than I suspect. Is officialdom sending a message for those who can see?

[Paslode]

MOO - but it seems pretty obvious that our North American neighbors to the North of our border understand our ways no better than do so many of our own citizens.

And so it goes...

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

Isn't it interesting that the various players perceive a need to have some sort of stability police force? The last time we had a major failure of a police force was during Katrina, was it not? It seems like a rare event.

So it may be that this is simply something to do for those involved - a sort of toy. But I wonder...what if the present faux recovery is even more weak and vulnerable than I suspect. Is officialdom sending a message for those who can see?

In both cases, only time will tell.

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Moved to appropriate thread: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26768

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Deleted.

[Paslode]

Executive Order 13524 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-30413.pdf) (12/16/09) amended Reagan's EO 12425 to give INTERPOL the right to refuse disclosure of their materials in the US.

INTERPOL’s constitution (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/LegalMaterials/constitution/constitutionGenRe.g./constitution.asp#CCF) prohibits ‘any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.’ But they are also the worlds largest Policing organization; so why should they receive diplomatic type immunities from our LE organizations and FOIA?

Particularly:


Ronald Noble, who became Secretary General of Interpol after serving as Undersecretary for Enforcement of the Treasury, said in his 9/20/05 re-election acceptance speech:


Article on the topic:


That is another topic, but there seem to have been a slew of EO's in the recent weeks and an onslaught information regarding them. But answer me this, do any of our LE agencies receive the same broad immunities as the EO grants Interpol?

Lastly, what do you think of this Council of Governors?

[Richard]

6.8SPC_DUMP and Paslode - y'all should reread the following thread:

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26768

And so it goes...

Richard

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

That is another topic, but there seem to have been a slew of EO's in the recent weeks and an onslaught information regarding them. But answer me this, do any of our LE agencies receive the same broad immunities as the EO grants Interpol?

Sorry I'm not the person to ask if any LE agencies receive the same immunities.

Lastly, what do you think of this Council of Governors?
I hope it doesn't influence Governors to over rely on the Council for the decision making process of giving control of their National Guard.

Just my .0000002

Added: Sorry Richard should have searched.

[Vic]

One of the next potential governers of texas, Debra Medina, says she plans to take back the guard to patrol the border. This might be the first challenge to the role they have been fit into lately.

[ChickenMcFuggit]

I would however like to step forward and volunteer the Govenor of Maryland to a position on the council. Perhaps he can be sent to Alaska for a very, very long time.

We the people of South Carolina have about as much use for our Guv as Bill had for Hillary. You might be hitting on an idea there....:D

[Sigaba]

From the White House's press announcement partially quoted in the OP.The formation of the Council of Governors was required by the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act which stated, “The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.” (NDAA FY2008,Sec 1822)Interestingly, when Bush the Younger signed this act into law, he made no comment on this provision in his signing statement. This fact invites one to wonder. Is the root concern the EO itself or the guy who signed it? The Boston Globe's article on that signing statement is available here (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act?mode= PF).Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act
Calls restrictions unconstitutional

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 30, 2008

WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.

The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a "treaty," and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Critics are also concerned Bush might lock the United States into a deal that would make it difficult for the next president to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

"Every time a senior administration official is asked about permanent US military bases in Iraq, they contend that it is not their intention to construct such facilities," said Senator Robert P. Casey Jr., Democrat of Pennsylvania, in a Senate speech yesterday. "Yet this signing statement issued by the president yesterday is the clearest signal yet that the administration wants to hold this option in reserve."

Several other congressional Democrats also took issue with the signing statement.

"I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that."

Bush's signing statement did not explain the specific basis for his objection to the prohibition on establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.

But last year, the White House told Congress that a similar provision in another bill "impermissibly infringes upon the president's constitutional authority to negotiate treaties and conduct the nation's foreign affairs."

Some legal specialists disagreed with the administration's legal theory.

"Congress clearly has the authority to enact this limitation of the expenditure of funds for permanent bases in Iraq," said Dawn Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor who was the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration.

Bush's frequent use of signing statements to advance aggressive theories of executive power has been a hallmark of his presidency. Previous presidents occasionally used the device, but Bush has challenged more sections of bills than all his predecessors combined - among them, a ban on torture.

Bush signing statements prompted widespread controversy when his record came to light in 2006. After Democrats took over Congress in 2007, Bush initially issued fewer and less aggressive signing statements. But his new statement returned to the previous approach, observers said.

The signing statement also targeted a provision in the defense bill that strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for companies that hold government contracts. The new law expands employees' ability to disclose wrongdoing without being fired, and it gives greater responsibility to federal inspectors general to investigate complaints of retaliation.

In addition, Bush targeted a section that requires intelligence agencies to turn over "any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion" requested by the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees within 45 days. If the president wants to assert executive privilege to deny the request, the law says, White House counsel must do so in writing.

Finally, Bush's signing statement raised constitutional questions about a section of the bill that established an independent, bipartisan "Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan" to investigate allegations of waste, mismanagement, and excessive force by contractors.

The law requires the Pentagon to provide information to the panel "expeditiously" upon its request.

The signing statement did not make clear whether Bush is objecting to the creation of the commission because some of its members will be appointed by Congress or whether he is reserving the right to turn down its requests for information - or both.

Phillip Cooper, a political science professor at Portland State University, noted that Bush's statement does not clearly spell out the basis for any of his challenges. Cooper, who has been a pioneer in studying signing statements, said the vague language itself is a problem.

"It is very hard for Congress or the American people to figure out what is supposed to happen and what the implications of this are," Cooper said.

The White House did not respond to a Globe request to explain the objections in greater detail. But the Bush administration has repeatedly insisted that its use of signing statements has been both lawful and appropriate.

Still, the signing statement makes one thing clear, according to David Barron, a Harvard law professor. The White House, he said, is pressing forward with its effort to establish that the commander in chief can defy laws limiting his options in national security matters. The administration made similar assertions in recent disputes over warrantless wiretapping and interrogation methods, he said.

"What this shows is that they're continuing to assert the same extremely aggressive conception of the president's unilateral power to determine how and when US force will be used abroad, and that's a dramatic departure from the American constitutional tradition," said Barron, who was a Justice Department official in the 1990s.

In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."

Among the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have said they would issue signing statements if elected. John McCain said he would not.MOO, the council will prove more significant in electoral politics. First, members of the council will have the opportunity to receive national exposure. (Imagine a council on which the members from the president's party are especially dyanmic while those from the opposing party are milquetoast.) Second, council members will claim that their time on the council gave them experience in matters of homeland/national security.

[Surf n Turf]

Obama moving on ---
I think I read somewhere that the Federal Government was responsible to the states, and the citizens. "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."
Why are they leading this parade.:confused:
SnT

WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to the Council of Governors. The Council, created January 11 of this year by Executive Order, will work closely with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other defense and national security advisors to exchange views, information and advice on matters of mutual interest pertaining to the National Guard, homeland defense, synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States, and civil support activities.

* Governor James H. Douglas, Co-Chair, Council of Governors * Governor Chris Gregoire, Co-Chair, Council of Governors * Governor Janice K. Brewer, Member, Council of Governors * Governor Luis G. Fortuño, Member, Council of Governors * Governor Brad Henry, Member, Council of Governors * Governor Robert F. McDonnell, Member, Council of Governors * Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Member, Council of Governors * Governor Martin O’Malley, Member, Council of Governors * Governor Beverly Eaves Perdue, Member, Council of Governors * Governor M. Michael Rounds, Member, Council of Governors

President Obama said, “I am pleased that these Governors of exceptional experience have agreed to join the Council of Governors. This bipartisan team strengthens the partnership between our State Governments and the Federal Government when it comes to ensuring our national preparedness and homeland defense. I look forward to working with them in the years ahead.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2445154/posts

[Sigaba]

* Governor James H. Douglas, Co-Chair, Council of Governors
* Governor Chris Gregoire, Co-Chair, Council of Governors
* Governor Janice K. Brewer, Member, Council of Governors
* Governor Luis G. Fortuño, Member, Council of Governors
* Governor Brad Henry, Member, Council of Governors
* Governor Robert F. McDonnell, Member, Council of Governors
* Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Member, Council of Governors
* Governor Martin O’Malley, Member, Council of Governors
* Governor Beverly Eaves Perdue, Member, Council of Governors
* Governor M. Michael Rounds, Member, Council of Governors

[The president] said, “I am pleased that these Governors of exceptional experience have agreed to join the Council of Governors. This bipartisan team strengthens the partnership between our State Governments and the Federal Government [/B]when it comes to ensuring our national preparedness and homeland defense. I look forward to working with them in the years ahead.” IMO, it is revealing how the president lauds "this bipartisan team" but the White House's press release does not tell you which governor belongs to what party.:rolleyes: This deliberate omission allows him to take credit for a bipartisan approach and to deflect attention from where each member fits in the political spectrum in general and on GWOT in particular.

I think that domestic politics, not matters of national security, are the focus here.

YMMV.

[Utah Bob]

IMO, it is revealing how the president lauds "this bipartisan team" but the White House's press release does not tell you which governor belongs to what party.:rolleyes: This deliberate omission allows him to take credit for a bipartisan approach and to deflect attention from where each member fits in the political spectrum in general and on GWOT in particular.

I think that domestic politics, not matters of national security, are the focus here.

YMMV.

Their affiliations

*
* Governor James H. Douglas, Co-Chair, Council of Governors Rep
* Governor Chris Gregoire, Co-Chair, Council of Governors Dem
* Governor Janice K. Brewer, Member, Council of Governors Rep
* Governor Luis G. Fortuño, Member, Council of Governors Rep
* Governor Brad Henry, Member, Council of Governors Dem
* Governor Robert F. McDonnell, Member, Council of Governors Rep
* Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Member, Council of Governors Dem
* Governor Martin O’Malley, Member, Council of Governors Dem
* Governor Beverly Eaves Perdue, Member, Council of Governors Dem
* Governor M. Michael Rounds, Member, Council of Governors Rep