National Guard: President to bypass Governors' Consent

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regardless of the best policy regarding the National Guard chain of command....

The idea that a governor should exercise total control over over a force that is paid for by the federal government is crazy.

A statement based entirely on a false premise.

The Federal Government taxes even residents of overtaxed states like California, New York and Massachusetts FAR more than the State can collect.

The people who pay for the National Guard are the people who live in the state. The money doesn't come down from the Federal Government; it's taken from us here in the state. And my state provides an ENORMOUS amount of tax revenue due to its large economy.

WE pay for highways, WE pay for the military, WE pay for drug enforcement that a large majority here voted against. It's not THEM, it's US. The Governor "doesn't want to pay for it?" Yeah. That's why our best governors are those who are willing to go beg Washington for a little more of our own money back.

An old response to these sorts of statements about the Federal Government "paying for something" is this...

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin'.
 
The idea that in 2006 we can defend the country with an untrained rabble who will (maybe) deploy from their homes with the buttons popping open on their BDUs with their SKSs in hand has our potential enemies quaking in their boots. War is just a bit different then it was in the 1700s.....

Oh, well there's an unbiased, intelligent and wholly enlightened viewpoint. :rolleyes:

It's nice that here on The High Road, we can refrain from abusing stereotypes, capitalizing on generalizations too greatly and launching broad-brush insults at others the way we do...oh, wait a minute...never mind.
 
ArmedBear,
You are incorrect. No state pays for it's Army and Air Guard Forces though it's federal income taxes. I don't care how big you think the California economy is, it's not big enough to pay for the guard that is in the state.

I suppose that you also pay enough in federal income tax to pay for all the Section Housing money that goes into California, or all the agriculture subsidies?

The federal deficit is increasing by millions a day. No one is paying enough federal taxes to pay for the services they demand from the federal government. If you or I ran our finances the way the federal government does, we'd be in jail for fraud.

You want a state guard..pay for it..it's that simple. The governors know they don't pay for the guard. You know the state doesn't pay for the guard.

We can get into where the tax money should go, but that's a different discussion. The guard is federally funded. If the governor wants to control a state defense force let him pay for it from the state budget. Once the tax money goes to Washington it belongs to the federal government. It doesn't matter where it came from. It's supposed to spent on things that benefit all 50 states. We all know it's not. But what you have are governors trying control something they don't own or pay for.

Jeff
 
No one is paying enough federal taxes to pay for the services they demand from the federal government.
I don't believe that's true.

I believe I'm paying enough - more than enough, actually - for the services I demand from the Federal government.

Problem is, I'm also paying for a lot of services I'm NOT demanding from the Federal government. :(
 
"Once the tax money goes to Washington it belongs to the federal government."



There, you finally said it. And here I thought that our taxes belonged to US and that the government worked for US.



Apparently we work for the federal government. So you want us to be slaves, but with gun rights. You're quite the patriot, Jeff.
 
Enslvement..bah

v8fbird,
How can you be a slave to the government that you elect? You my friend are the government. If you don't like the way your employees are running things, fire them...It's really that simple.

Jeff
 
Deficit spending, actually, is the separate discussion. The cost of that is also borne by real people who live in the states, not by the Federal Government.

I'm not saying that Federal taxes should remain as high as they are. What I'm saying is that, as long as they are so high, the states simply can't have a budget large enough to cover the National Guard because the Federal Government has already taken the money to DC, to dole it back to the states from whence it came.

As long as the Federal Government gets so much of the tax revenue, it's specious to argue that States just "can't pay for something". Of course they can't. But that's not some law of nature; it could be changed in 48 hours with a vote of Congress and the signature of the President.

If you take any arbitrary thing you want to as a "given", you can justify nearly anything in your argument, but that don't make it so.
 
"No one is paying enough federal taxes to pay for the services they demand from the federal government."





REALLY. I drive on the highways. I have a fire department near me.

I don't want police protection (that won't come and will probably violate my rights). I don't want to be "nationally defended" by the thugs in our military to a cost of $300 billion a year.

I.......I.............I can't think of another service I consume.



For the highways and the fire department I will pay $20,000+ in state and federal income taxes and payroll taxes this year. Not to mention car taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, along with usage fees on my phone, cable, internet, cell, etc. If everyone chipped in $20,000 for fire and highways, with 175,000,000+ workers, that would be $3.5 trillion, or 30 percent of the ENTIRE U.S. GDP.

Yes, Jeff, I think I pay more than I should. But "to each according to his ability," right Jeff???
 
How can you be a slave to the government that you elect?

Many totalitarian dictators are elected. So what?

But even without any active corruption on the part of those in power, the "tyranny of the majority" problem with democracy says that, indeed, you CAN be a slave to an elected government, or to your neighbors directly. The Greeks found that out a couple of millenia ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

By no means does that mean that we shouldn't be active in politics. But the assertion that majority rule = freedom was disproven by Socrates as his last act on earth.
 
I didn't elect it, Jeff. I didn't vote. I don't vote. I won't vote. The system is rigged (BCRA of 2002, et al.), we don't have free and fair elections. I refuse to give creedence to a deck stacked against me, and I refuse to give legitimacy to a tyrannical government that says I ELECTED IT.

I don't want to be an American citizen; I don't want to be under the control of our federal government. I don't want to pay taxes; I don't want to consume services. I want to to leave others alone and to be left alone in return.

I am stuck in this country, though, for lack of a better place to go. I don't believe in the Social Contract Theory, I don't believe I owe anything to the state or that the state has a duty to me. To be able to enter into voluntarily into a social contract means that you have a right to exit that contract. It must be free for you to exit, and there must be somewhere to exit to. It is not free to leave (try to get a passport) and there is nowhere else to go.

I believe that the state is equivalent to violence and the violation of natural rights, and that the absence of violence and the presence of freedom inherently necessitates the absence of the state.

I live here because I was born here, and because my home is here. I am tied to the land, to my family, and to my friends. For those reasons, I am a citizen and, therefore, a slave.
 
How can you be a slave to the government that you elect? You my friend are the government. If you don't like the way your employees are running things, fire them...It's really that simple.


First, let me say my response has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. However, such statements are a great pallative for the ills now facing our society. Our constitutional republic is rapidly becoming a direct democracy. It is no longer the rule of law, but the rule of the majority. As an RKBA centered site, I would hope some here would notice that. If it is so easy for we the minority to "throw the bums out," why is it we see no Libertarians elected? For all the espousing of their ideals here I would think they would be more well represented. "The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally the maxim has been studied and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge to determine right." Alexander Hamilton
 
The idea that in 2006 we can defend the country with an untrained rabble who will (maybe) deploy from their homes with the buttons popping open on their BDUs with their SKSs in hand has our potential enemies quaking in their boots. War is just a bit different then it was in the 1700s.....

Loyalist: "The idea that in 1776 we can defend the colonies with an
untrained rabble who will leave their farms with their buttons popping open
on their knickers and their flintlocks in hand has our potential enemies,
such as the French and Spanish, quaking in their boots....."

Another neocon self-outed and routed.
 
TBL said;
Loyalist: "The idea that in 1776 we can defend the colonies with an
untrained rabble who will leave their farms with their buttons popping open
on their knickers and their flintlocks in hand has our potential enemies,
such as the French and Spanish, quaking in their boots....."

If you depended on that rabble to win independence, you'd still be a crown subject. It was the Continental Army that won independence.

All revolutions eventually evolve into conventional conflicts between armies. Militias and irregulars can never defeat organized forces over the long haul. The only hope they have for victory is wearing down the people supporting the organized forces.

I suggest you read a little history....the myth of the invincible guerrilla is just that, a myth.

Jeff
 
TBL said:
And, it doesn't shock me that you in particular would misunderstand, misconstrue, etc comments and opinions that you are simply opposed to, not actually being more correct or enlightened about it.

First, since I haven't expressed an opinion on this I don't know how you would determine what I was or was not opposed to based on my earlier post which simply pointed out where you were wrong.

Second, you make it sound as if it is merely my opinion that Perpich v. United States says that the National Guard is not the militia, or that is just my way of thinking that makes me say that the National Guard was created (by the Feds) in 1903. The things I corrected you on are factual. You might not like them; but they do represent how the law applies to your daily life.

Third, what do you feel I misunderstood? My understanding was that based on a mistaken belief that the National Guard was the militia (it isn't - having been created in 1903 by the Feds and is fully funded by the Feds as well) you wished to use this story as a point to underline your greater theme - which appears to be either that the Feds are taking power from the states or that the Executive is usurping Congressional functions. The problem with making that point using this example is that it doesn't support either point. The Feds cannot take away what never belonged to the states to begin with (the National Guard) and Congress allowed the President leeway to make those decisions (and has since 1903), he didn't take it from Congress.

Bart, are you a lawyer? Do you work for the FEDERAL Justice Department or one of the other FEDERAL branches. You are always so quick to defend all aspects of the FEDERAL gov't and the current, hopefully temporary, administration.

I am not a lawyer, though several of the people you were arguing with are practicing attorneys who have given you the correct information. I like to think I am quick to correct misinformation. You were misinformed on a wide and deep level. I believe as George Washington did that the government is like fire - a dangerous servant and a fearful master. For the reasons I've already explained though, I think this is a particularly poor issue to use to make that point. There is also an important difference between the Consitution as interpreted by TBL and the Constitution as interpreted by our elected government. I don't mind discussions about what someone thinks the proper role of the militia should be based on the original intentions of the Founders; but stating it as fact when it isn't supported by law is confusing to other readers.

While you're quoting the Consitution, look up the part about raising an army and the money to fund it being limited to *two years*. Yeah, "we" (through the Federal Gov't) have pretty much ignored that one for most of the past century.

No, we haven't ignored it. The Constitution says:
Constitution said:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

As a result, Congress funds appropriations for the armed forces on a yearly basis. Every year, Congress passes the budget that appropriates funds for the standing Army. Do you really believe that the same people who fought the British from 1776-1783 intended to create a government where the Army must be disbanded after two years?

Of course, if the Feds ignore it, it makes it right and you'll agree with it because they must have a really good reason for everything they do

With all the snide comments, it is obvious you are feeling very passionate about this. That is great. We need passion on our side; but we also need accurate information and good judgement and your argument here shows no signs of either. Right now you are on one of the more Libertarian firearms boards on the Internet and you feel a need to make comments like these? Instead of busting my balls for explaining to you the way the law is, why not write a letter to your elected representatives who make and administer the law? It will be a lot more effective than taking cheap shots at other THR members.
 
Do you really believe that the same people who fought the British from 1776-1783 intended to create a government where the Army must be disbanded after two years?
Well ... I don't think they intended that the Army be disbanded if we were still at war, but at the same time, it was declared that a standing army in times of peace was a danger to liberty ... so I think they must have intended something other than a perpetual standing army.
 
Possibly unfortunately, since WWII we have been stuck
with a standing army.

Plus, over a hundred years ago, the National Guard was
created under the Power of Congress ro raise an Army.
so the National Guard has always been a federal army
reserve and has never been a state militia. Blame that on
politics after the Spanish-American War.
 
I groan at this whole situation

Back when "The Boy General", Douglas McArthur was Army Chief of Staff......

The various states Governors opposed the Federal government's activation of their state's National Guard units. Seeing as the National Guard is not the state's "militia", but an arm of the U.S. Armed Forces, the argument was lost before it was every argued.

Every now and again, the Govs of the respective states keep trying to insert their state's soverign power over the National Guard and fall on their face.

If their consent and signature would be truly needed as the law stands now, then all these years of court battles over the various National Guard units have since been null and void. I don't buy the story that the Govs need to give their consent and question the reasons why a need exists to introduce a bill of this nature.
 
hugh damnright said:
Well ... I don't think they intended that the Army be disbanded if we were still at war, but at the same time, it was declared that a standing army in times of peace was a danger to liberty ... so I think they must have intended something other than a perpetual standing army.

I'd definitely agree that the Founding Fathers never intended to have a standing peacetime Army.

As for myself, I don't think there is any question that a standing army (whether called a federal police, national guard or professional army) is dangerous to liberty. The question seems to be is it such a danger that we would be better off without it? As much as a standing army might be a problem, I think it offers more benefits than risk.
 
Militias and irregulars can never defeat organized forces over the long haul.

That's true.

But what does that have to do with the National Guard, which seems to embody the downsides of both militias and the standing Federal military?

Rolling the National Guard into the Federal military, and having State entities that fulfill what service it actually provides to the states, seems to make sense to me.
 
In the 2001 budget, the various Army & Air National Guards had a total budget of $15.2B. I suspect the budget is larger, nowadays.

That $15.2B could fund an awful lot of light infantry, were it left in the states from whence it came.

IMO, the National Guard ought to be rolled into the reserves and that $15.2B given back to the states to fund their own militias.
 
jfruser,
If they rolled the National Guard into the USAR and AFR, they would most likely keep the federal tax dollars that supported the guard and leave the states to fend for themselves. Then when there was a disaster, those states that failed to organize, equip and train their militia would have no forces available to the governor and the federal troops would have to be called in. This would be the end of what's left of Posse Commitatus and the use of federal troops would be common throughout our society.....

Jeff
 
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress
power - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service
of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With
obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the
effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the
Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied
with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and
train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to
keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time
strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that
adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the
Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears
from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation
of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
"A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further,
that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time.

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points
out "that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this
kingdom," and traces the subsequent development and use of such
forces.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an
extended account of the Militia. It is there said: "Men of
republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as
dangerous to liberty." "In a militia, the character of the
labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the
soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over
every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the
essential difference between those two different species of
military force."

"The American Colonies In The 17th Century," Osgood, Vol. 1,
ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in
New England-

"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was
based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the
general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms,
and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence."
"The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition,
and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as
to the former." "A year later [1632] it was ordered that any single
man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to
service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of
the colony [Massachusetts]."

Also "Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and
ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in
all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines
were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals.
According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts
consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in l649
and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed
with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The
musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard
musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than
four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and
mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty
bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that
two-thirds of each company should be musketeers."

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784,
provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It
directed that the Train Band should "contain all able bodied men,
from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other
men under sixty years of age,..." Also, "That every non-
commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not
under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of
sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the
town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be
constantly provided with a good fire arm," &c.

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 the New York Legislature
directed: "That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of
this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this
State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who
are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years,
shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which
such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of
this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat . . . . That
every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months
thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket
or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box
therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to
the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a
proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and
Knapsack;..."

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785, (12 Hening's
Statutes) declared, "The defense and safety of the commonwealth
depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the
knowledge of military duty."

It further provided for organization and control of the
Militia and directed that "All free male persons between the ages
of eighteen and fifty years," with certain exceptions, "shall be
inrolled or formed into companies." "There shall be a private
muster of every company once in two months."

Also that "Every officer and soldier shall appear at his
respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in
the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . .
every noncommissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket
carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the
barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a
cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty
cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and
moreover, each non-commissioned officer and Private shall have at
every muster one pound of good powder, and four pounds of lead,
including twenty blind cartridges; and each serjeant shall have a
pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to
be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on
delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward
of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall
not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles
with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said
officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly
keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be
produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any
private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court
hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act
that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein
required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the
money arising from delinquents."

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching
the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language
employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions
concerning the scope of the right guaranteed.

US Supreme Court Justice James C. McReynolds
in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
 
Well, if this does go through it should dispel any lingering illusion that the National Guard is really the "Militia" of which the 2nd Amendment speaks. If the state's commanding officer doesn't have control of his/her own troops, they can hardly be argued to be the state's troops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top