The National Guard
State versus National Control
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6360934 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Samuel J Newland (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1989 |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 68-68 |
| Publication date | 1989-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Public Administration Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0033-3352 • E-ISSN: 1540-6210 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.2307/977231 |
| OpenAlex | W2014132329 |
| Language | EN |
Beginning with the refusals by the Governors of California (January 1985) and Maine (March 1986) to deploy Guardsmen to Honduras for training exercises,1 considerable press coverage has been given to the issue of who controls the National Guard. The issue has since received additional publicity through the Montgomery Amendment2 to the Fiscal Year 1987 Department of Defense Authorization Act (which removed the authority of governors to veto training on the basis of location) and suits brought against the Department of Defense first by Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich and later by Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. In both suits the Governors unsuccessfully sought to overturn the Montgomery Amendment and retain the state's ability to veto training missions scheduled through the Department of the Army and the National Guard Bureau.3 Both decisions were appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against Dukakis in October 1988
Algorithm · Guard (computer science · National guard · Political science · State (computer science · Computer Science · Defense, Military, and Policy Studies · Military and Defense Studies · Public Administration
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |