On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 01:14:45AM +0000, Steven Schear wrote:
> https://mises.org/wire/when-state-governors-tried-take-back-control-national-guard
Article title: When State Governors Tried To Take Back Control of the
National Guard
…This isn't the first time the Department of Defense has essentially bribed
state politicians into buckling under demands for total state acquiescence to
Pentagon demands.
... Defense Department personnel began to develop a plan to remove all but a
single unit of the National Guard form Ohio. Specifically:
the Ohio Guard grossly underestimated what [National Guard Bureau Chief
Lieutenant General Herbert R.] Temple had in mind for them. Most of them
apparently believed they stood to lose the engineer brigade headquarters
(including one general officer as the commander) and perhaps the subordinate
engineer battalions. None, however, dreamed — it seems — that the Ohio National
Guard could be made to disappear over a period of a very few months except for
only the 73rd Infantry Brigade. And. in particular, that the Ohio Air National
Guard could be made to cease to exist.
The primary purpose of all of this was to use the Pentagon's financial power
to take resources out of the state, thus reducing state revenue and economic
activity generated by federal spending inside the state. The local media began
running stories about how the move would lead to lost jobs.
Moreover, the Pentagon's move would have forced the state to fund all of its
own remaining National Guard units. The bill would have been $256 million.
Eventually, the governor caved, and the Ohio National Guard deployed as the
Defense Department wished.
In 1990, the US Supreme Court sided with the Department of Defense, and
ruled the Montgomery Amendment was binding.
OK, the first part of that article is about state governors/parliaments
introducing bills (statutes) to limit federal military authority over state
militia forces (basically, state armies which now seem to be referred to as
"national guard").
The second part seems almost identical in principle.
To paraphrase: state parliament authority over "their own" militia ("per-state
'national' guard") gets killed by the federal govt. with "sure, but the Fed/DoD
will punish you financially if you pass that..."
IOW, the federal parliament, in practice, retains primary authority over the
state militias/ national guards.
This is not what we call a problem for Trump, rather a benefit.
Also, in the present case the issue is not foreign deployment, simply
intra-state deployment (not even inter-state deployment) - the only question
being whether this deployment is 'under' Federal or state authority... and
possumably if by Federal authority, then inter-state deployment may actually be
wise, e.g. send GA nat.guard to PA, and vice versa, to maximise objectivity in
running a military/nat.guard monitored (integrity enforced) paper-only
re-election, to once and for all end this dispute.
Just as SCOTUS has "original jurisdiction" in many matters, so too does the
president have original jurisdiction in matters of declaring a national state
of emergency, especially when such declaration has clear and strong historical
precedent (Abe Lincoln), and where Trump, having dutifully and diligently
exhausted all other avenues (e.g. courts, faithless electors etc), is left with
no other practical and timely option to defend the union, under the
constitution of the United States of America, from all enemies both foreign and
domestic/ internal!
We will not give up our righteous struggle for truth and justice!
Oh, and none of this directly affects a people's' militia/ citizen's' militia
existing outside of statute law. But the "Fed financial punishment" stick must
most likely still be carefully considered, where relevant. And further, as
stated, extra-statutory people's' militias don't seem to exist yet...
The third part of the above linked article states:
Why the Pentagon Has so Much Power Over State Troops
Today, when the militia clause of the Second Amendment is mentioned, it is
not uncommon to hear the claim that "the National Guard is the militia."
This stretches the truth, to say the least.
Today's National Guard is nothing like the independent state militias that
existed throughout the nineteenth century up until the adoption of the Militia
Act of 1903. Prior to the 1903 act, state militias were primarily state funded,
and were not integrated into the federal government's military structure except
in times of declared war.
The Militia Act created a new type of "militia" which replaced the old
decentralized model with a new system in which state National Guard units were
to receive federal funding and were to be integrated into the national military
as a permanent reserve force.
But even after 1903, the state National Guards retained a high degree of
independence compared to today. That was further eroded with the National
Defense Act of 1916 which allowed National Guard United to be deployed outside
their own states — and even outside the country — for much longer periods of
time than had been previously allowed. The 1916 Act further increased federal
funding — and thus federal control — over National Guard units.
Another major change came in 1933. At that time, new amendments to the
National Defense Act were passed which made members of the National Guard units
members of both their state's National Guard, and the federal military.
Further integration occurred throughout the following decades, culminating
with the adoption of the "Total Force Policy" in 1970. According to Burgess, et
al., this meant National Guard units became fully "woven into the fabric of the
Defense establishment."
By 1986, the idea of an independent state National Guard was all but dead.
As we have seen, some governors briefly tried to revive the idea, but it was
struck down by the courts, and by the Pentagon's immense power over military
resources within each state.
...
IOW, the states tried to have their cake of federal subsidies and federal money
(e.g. federal manufacturing in that state), and eat it too with unilateral
state control over those resources. It was morally right for the courts to
rule against such deluded wishful thinking...
For future reference, a much more probable "low hanging fruit" in this type of
issue is to run a referendum of the people - just be sure to properly inform
your state constituents so they know the price the federal govt. will cause
them to pay; considering that price, the simplest way might be to build that
independence:
- each state should, to the extent practical, vertically integrate
(same for each country)
With such a (robust) principal lived to a high degree, then entities such as
USA states (and other countries) can bid/ contract/ provide services to
external authorities (such as the USA federal govt.) on a basis of dignity and
mutual benefit. This only requires people who live in such a way/ in their
hearts.
In summary, independence of anything, requires actual, rather than nominal,
independence. In practice today actual independence means independence:
- financially
- in relation to resources: food, materials, people etc
- politically
Financial and resource dependence, means deferring (or subjugation to) the
authority of the one paying the bills.
The same will ultimately be the case for any other or similar authority,
including any extra-statutory (yet constitutional) people's' militia: if your
armed militia members are surviving on government "welfare" payments, expect
those payments to stop, as a last resort, should your member's' "welfare" be
deemed no longer important to "your" federal government :D
Many folks today want shortcuts, instant gratification - there ain't no such
thing when it comes to 'real' authority - either you are actually living your
authority, surviving and being independent in at least some relevant ways, or
you are a deluded slave . . .
