MaryDiane Baker volunteers as Action Corps Vermont organizer for Vermont.
BRATTLEBORO-I write with clarifications in response to Rep. Laura Sibilia's Commentary on the Defend the Guard Act.
I echo her stance that many supporters of H.355 are veterans who "want clear congressional votes before war." H.355 is not a feel-good resolution: It speaks to her weighty concerns for those veterans, for the need of clarity and protection from Congress. It is grounded in the Constitution itself.
No one is talking about overriding the federal government and its authority over the National Guard. We are talking about upholding the U.S. Constitution when the federal government is failing to do so - holding the line against any administration misusing our Guard for unauthorized combat.
Americans are dying in a war started by the president without the consent of the American people. In this moment of worsening international crisis, Congress has abdicated its Article I authority and deferred to executive overreach rather than achieve proper authorization.
Vermonters require the implementable force of law to protect their rights under the Constitution and gain accountability from Congress. Thankfully, the Defend the Guard Act, introduced a year ago would rectify this neglect, uphold the Constitution, and provide accountability.
* * *
H.355 would prohibit the deployment of the Vermont National Guard into overseas combat until Congress has voted to declare war, as required by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Similar bills have been introduced in more than 30 states in recent years and have passed chambers in other states. The New Hampshire House of Representatives passed theirs with a bipartisan majority this January.
This is part of a national bipartisan movement, predominantly led by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who do not want to see the mistakes of the global war on terror repeated for a new generation of soldiers.
Supportive of the Guard's dual rule under both state and federal government, Defend the Guard is concise in its language- only three pages - and limited in scope.
The bill specifies that it would not affect Title 32 domestic deployments, utilized under the governor's direction to assist the civil authority and provide disaster relief, which was vital during recent flooding. Neither would it affect overseas training missions that take place under Title 10 federalization.
* * *
Rep. Sibilia, in Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that governors cannot object to their National Guard being deployed overseas to training operations, the intended purpose of federal funding: training for readiness to meet federal standards.
The justices were unanimous and wisely did not extend the objection to combat operations, knowing the legal prerequisites for that instance are already laid out by the Constitution: Only Congress can declare war, and the National Guard can be called into federal service only to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and enforce the laws of the union, which include declarations of war.
Our entire Vermont congressional delegation voted to end this illegal war with Iran. They were defeated - not in a vote to legally authorize the war, but in a decision by Congress to sit on its hands.
When the federal government fails to uphold federal law, it is the obligation of the states to assert their sovereignty and defend their residents, including citizen-soldiers such as the National Guard, from arbitrary power. No one concerned with the law can accept the Guard's activation into war without a vote by their elected representatives.
Rather than superseding federal law, H.355 affirms Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and Title 10 of the U.S. code and provides a further check on its violation. A representative who votes in favor of the H.355 is doing nothing more than recertifying their oath of office.
For decades, Congress has willingly and unconstitutionally ceded its authority and oversight to the executive branch. May the recent votes on war powers in Iran be the final instance: A majority of Congressional members were unwilling to accept the responsibility entrusted to them.
* * *
This is not merely a disagreement of policy. It is an overarching question: Do we have representative government, or do we have one-man rule - one man with the power to make war anywhere, at any time, and for any reason?
I say: Not with our Vermont National Guard members!
It is urgent that the Legislature proceed with H.355 and ensure its passage before our Vermont Guard is sent, yet again, into another deadly war on which no one voted.
In exchange for putting their lives on the line, Guard members should at least be backed by the accountability of their elected officials.
We owe them no less.
This Voices Response was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.