Perry has deployed 1,000 members of the Texas National Guard to the southern border in Operation Strong Safety. They will primarily support police officers from the Texas Department of Public Safety and other state personnel as those officers try to maintain public safety and protect public health. The guardsmen will also have authority to apprehend people under certain circumstances.
The National Guard can be used by a chief executive under federal statutes in three ways. Title 10 of the United States Code governs the U.S. military. Title 32 governs the National Guard. If a president federalizes a National Guard unit, that unit transfers to Title 10 and comes under presidential control as part of the regular military. The National Guard usually acts under Title 32 as a pure state body, under the control of its state’s governor as its commander in chief.
Then there is a hybrid model. A president and a governor can agree to have National Guard units work in tandem with federal agents. In this sort of operation, the National Guard units stay in a Title 32 capacity as state troops and thus continue to answer to the governor as their commander in chief, but the federal government funds their operations.
A clip of Jonathan Gruber circulated last night in which he states that Obamacare subsidies are tied to the existence of state exchanges. This statement is extremely problematic for the law’s supporters because it appears to confirm the view of plaintiffs in the Halbig case, i.e. that only state-exchanges were intended to deliver subsidies.
As I was watching the video clip of Jonathan Gruber talking about state-based exchanges and subsidies last night I came across another admission which deserves some attention. A few minutes later in the Q&A following his January 18, 2012 speech, Gruber admits that the public option was an attempt to slip single-payer into the Affordable Care Act.
Charles CW. Cooke, NRO: Controlling the Past:
He who controls the past controls the future,” observed George Orwell. “He who controls the present controls the past.” This, in one pithy, symmetrical little maxim, has been the story of Obamacare from its conception to the present day.
Since its official launch, in October of 2013, the architects and salesmen of our ill-conceived phalanx of reforms have been engaged in some of the most pronounced historical revisionism of the modern era — truth being subjugated to expedience; idealism being repackaged in the pathetic language of good intentions; and the past being tweaked at every tricky stage. Thus has the ironclad promise that insurance premiums would decrease for all people given way to scoffing admissions that “of course” some people’s premiums would increase. Thus has the quixotic assurance that there would be no winners and losers been transmuted into the defensive insistence that there are no perfect plans but that this one was “worth it overall.” Thus has a favored vow that anybody who “liked” their existing plan would be able to “keep it” replaced with the patronizing mantra that people just don’t know what’s good for them — and need in consequence to be told what they may buy. Thus has the claim of “universal health insurance” been quickly forgotten, a series of unseemly statistical victory dances being offered in lieu.
Top White House political adviser David Simas refused again Friday to honor a congressional subpoena, prompting Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to vote to rebuke the administration.
The Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 19-14 to reject the White House’s claim that Simas has absolute immunity from a subpoena from Congress.
Republicans said they were standing up for the principle that no one is above the law, and Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa quoted a long list of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who have backed Congress’ right to subpoena top administration officials.
Democrats, led by ranking member Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, said they strongly disagree with the White House’s claim of absolute immunity but also strongly disagree with Issa’s push to press the issue, warning it could hurt the institution if they take a case to court.
The White House informed Issa at 7:30 a.m. Friday that Simas would not appear, Issa said. The absence was “not excused,” the California Republican added.
White House Counsel W. Neil Eggleston asked Issa to withdraw the subpoena to discuss his late Thursday offer for Simas to give a deposition instead of subpoenaed testimony.
Issa refused to do so.
“We have an absolute right and obligation” to investigate the new White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, he said.
“This was intended to be a short, and I hope it will be, oversight of a relatively small but in the past controversial office, consistent with our requirement to do oversight even without a predicate of wrongdoing,” he said.
Issa said oversight of the previously troubled political office will help American people be more comfortable and ensure taxpayer dollars are being used properly.