Over the last month I have been working with the Fundraising Committee to get all of the details together for the Spring fundraiser. I designed the poster and assisted in editing outgoing communications regarding the event.
Over the last couple of months I have been working with State Senators in Indiana to introduce Defend the Guard legislation. Unfortunately, recent federal rulings have overturned the legislation, even in some states where it was passed. So I will be passing along the hurdles to those interested in going back to the drawing board and reassessing. As of now, Defend the Guard legislation cannot be introduced in Indiana, until these hurdles are addressed. I have attached the reason below.
I designed new logos for the LPH affiliate and updated our social media. Most of the LP Hillsborough EC has been in and out of town, so we did not have an in-person meeting last month. We have been coordinating over the phone and via text to set up our next meeting and to get our reaffiliation paperwork in order.
I have also been working on literature for Andrew Parrot's campaign for US House.
RE: Defend the Guard
Here is the reason:
There is some negative federal law and a United Supreme Court case. Specifically, 10 U.S.C. 12301(f)(formally 10 U.S.C 672) (aka Montgomery Amendment) provides:
(f) The consent of a Governor described in subsections (b) and (d) may not be withheld (in whole or in part) with regard to active duty outside the United States, its territories, and its possessions, because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such active duty.
Subsections (b) and (d) pertains to the federalization of the national guard for purposes of war or a national emergency and references the need of the approval of the governor for purposes of federalization of the National Guard. This section was actually challenged in Perpich v. DOD 496 U.S. 334. In that case, the Governor of Minnesota challenged the federalization of the Minnesota National Guard (Guard) for training in central America and claimed that the Guard could only be federalized in a time of war or national emergency. The Supreme Court held that the federal National Guard was created pursuant to Congress' Article I, sec. 8. Power to raise and support armies; that the fact that Guard units also have an identity as part of the state militia does not limit Congress' plenary authority to train the units as it see fit when the Guard is called to active federal service. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the Constitution neither required the gubernatorial veto nor prohibited the prohibition of a gubernatorial veto as provided in 10 U.S.C. 12301(f).
