Senator Wendy Rogers’ Defend the Guard: Is the Third Time a Charm?
Senate Bill 1495 successfully emerges from the committee following a spirited exchange, and it is now set to be heard on the Senate floor.
During the Arizona State Senate’s committee hearing on the Defend the Guard, a bill aiming to restrict the deployment of the Arizona National Guard without a formal declaration of war by Congress, a notable exchange occurred between Senators Eva Burch(D) and Wendy Rogers (R).
Burch expressed gratitude towards Brigadier General John Conley for his testimony, stating, “I just wanted to thank General Conley for his testimony here today. I found your testimony to be credible.” She also apologized for what she perceived as an affront to his qualifications, referring to it as an “indignity.”
In response, Rogers emphasized the importance of legislative scrutiny, asserting, “We are a constitutional republic, and if I can’t question the blood and treasure that gets decided upon to be spilled for our nation, then we have a problem.”
Rogers, indeed questioned and had a fiery exchange with General Conley who stood in opposition of Senate Bill 1495 known as - Defend the Guard.
Before placing her vote she said, “I find it interesting that the individual opposing this bill holds a general officer rank, while those in favor of it are the rank-and-file personnel who are actively fighting our wars.”
This is the third year the Senator has brought the bill and it was evident - this one is personal.
Take a look at Rogers’ opening statement during the M.A.B.S. committee hearing when she introduced the measure.
WHAT WOULD DEFEND THE GUARD DO?
The act stipulates the Arizona National Guard cannot be released into active duty combat unless one of the following conditions is met:
The U.S. Congress passes an official declaration of war.
Congress takes official action under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution, explicitly calling forth the National Guard to execute federal laws, repel an invasion, or suppress an insurrection.
Active duty combat is defined within the SB1495 as participation in armed conflict, performing hazardous services related to such conflict in a foreign state, or duties involving instruments of war.
There was a point of contention when the General stated that overseas “training missions” would be disallowed under this provision.
In her closing remarks, Rogers asserted, “SB1495 does not affect Title 32 domestic missions or overseas training. It relates only to combat operations. I emphasize again, it only pertains to combat operations. The National Guard is the backbone of the United States Armed Forces and will continue to be. However, the elected representatives of the people must fulfill their oath of office and vote to declare war, as required by Article 1, Section 8.”
DEFENSE SECRETARY HEGSETH’S PERSPECTIVE
During the hearing, Rogers asked whether the General had contacted the Defense Department to determine Hegseth’s current views on the Defend the Guard legislation. The General responded, "I’ve seen the clips, and maybe those were his views at the time." He then asserted that actions speak louder than words and listed a series of overseas military operations in which the National Guard is currently engaged.
Secretary Hegseth has barely hit the 20-day mark.
Rogers asked the question because video exists from Hegseth’s FOX days in which he clearly appears to support Defend the Guard.
Now that Hegseth is at the helm of the military, will he stand firm on this position or shift course?
Take a look:
DEFEND THE GUARD IS NOW A MOVEMENT
Senator Rogers has been a leading advocate for the Defend the Guard initiative. Three years ago, she successfully passed it in the Arizona Senate; however, it stalled in the House.
At the time, Arizona was first in the country to pass a measure in any body. Since then, the movement has gained momentum, with similar legislation being introduced in numerous states across the country.
The National Libertarian Party has officially endorsed the Defend the Guard movement, emphasizing the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions regarding war powers. The LP has been a leader in this movement and the party’s platform states:
“By passing ‘Defend the Guard’ legislation, state governments can block the use of their National Guard units from being deployed into active combat overseas unless such action has been sanctioned by a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.”
The Arizona Libertarian Party has been vocal in their support:
The Green Party in Arizona has also taken up the charge and voiced support for the bill.
Notably, Senator Tim Dunn was absent throughout a portion of the discussion. Chairman Gowan held the vote open for 1 minute and 24 seconds, awaiting Dunn's return to cast his vote.
In this video, you can see Senator Payne walk behind the General as he speaking. According to Bring Our Troops Home, last session it was Speaker Ben Toma (R) and Representative Kevin Payne (R) who killed the Defend the Guard in the House.
Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, Ben Toma, is stonewalling the Defend the Guard bill. He has refused to send the bill to the proper Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee.
Chairman Kevin Payne has not scheduled this bill for a hearing in the M.A.B.S. Committee because the Speaker of the House is blocking the will of the people.
Defend the Guard passed the Arizona Senate with unanimous Republican support.
Republican Speaker of the House Ben Toma is obstructing Representative Kevin Payne, chairman of the Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee, from scheduling this important bill for a full House hearing. - Bring Our Troops Home
It was a tense moment when Dunn was missing but the measure received a Do Pass recommendation 4-3, along party lines.
State 48 News will continuing monitoring Defend the Guard as it moves through the Arizona Legislature.
The United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15: This delegates to Congress the power to provide for "calling forth the militia" in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.
During state ratifying conventions, proponents of the Constitution, including James Madison and Edmund Randolph, repeatedly assured the people that this power to call forth the militia into federal service would be limited to those (3) particular situations and not for general purposes. One must read the papers that reflect the beliefs and thoughts of our founders to understand their intent in this Article and the entire United States Constitution. As a National Guard member from August 1970 to August 1976, I strongly support SB 1495, and thanks, Senator Rogers, for your efforts to see this through.
Jeff Luft
Thank you for covering this. As was mentioned in the article, Ben Toma stonewalled this previously, and Kevin Payne continues to try. These, I hesitate to call them, men are bought by the blood of our brethren used by the Military industrial Complex.
Payne was desperate to kill it here, so he got Dunn out of committee. Thankfully Gowan wasn't having any of it. We can expect a lot of interference by Payne thought this entire session.