Chocolatebison
(91 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 10:33 AM
Original message |
Why don't governors 'unfederalize' the National Guard and remove..... |
|
them from being a federal fighting force?
Prior to 1913 they were totally under state control.
|
Jecks
(26 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 10:39 AM
Response to Original message |
|
National Defense Act of 1916. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1918 and authorizes the federal government to use National Guard forces over seas in foreign conflict.
The NDA would have to be either repealed or re challenged.
Governors cannot simply "un federalize" the National Guard.
|
Chocolatebison
(91 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
SonofMass
(225 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
12. Sorry, but I think Ed McMahon has that line copyrighted. |
NYC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Maybe it's time to challenge the National Defense Act of 1916.
Welcome to DU.
|
cascadiance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 10:53 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I was thinking the same thing... |
|
Perhaps California would stop all support to the National Guard here, and instead put in place a State Militia and declare that those signing up for it wouldn't be draftable if a national draft were started. And there couldn't be any federal "grabbing" of State Militia members or resources to go off on these wars he's starting...
Might also help if we have to resort at some point to putting through a secession proposition. Then we can have clear ownership of these resources as California's military forces if need be. Would make sure that these resources are in place to do firefighting and other needed emergency relief, and therefore not have to worry about them being shortchanged and sent to Iraq, unlike the northwestern states that were worried about not being prepared for fire season with the feds taking away their National Guard helicopters, etc.
|
Chocolatebison
(91 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. North Carolina has it's own militia |
|
but apparently it hasn't been activated in years.
|
Jecks
(26 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Unless you count the right wing NCCM there has been no active militia since they fought on the side of the Confederacy in the Civil War.
State Militias with no federal control are dangerous animals.
See also "Army of Northern Virginia"
National Guard units used poorly or illegally by the President are even more dangerous.
|
MildyRules
(739 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Where would the NG and ANG get the planes, tanks, etc now provided and paid for by the Federal Govt?
Nothing stops ANY state from forming a militia using its own funding. But if you use Uncle Sugar's money, there are usually strings attached.
|
Chocolatebison
(91 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
States can still buy automatic weapons and tanks.
|
MildyRules
(739 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
11. Not sure about the tanks... |
|
But what State do you think is REALLY going to do that???
|
cascadiance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
13. Yup, it would probably cost states a lot of money... |
|
Edited on Tue Aug-30-05 12:04 PM by calipendence
to do this, but in these times, perhaps it will at some point be a necessary time to rise up against the fascist control that's coming down from the feds. At least with a state militia, there can be no doubt who would "own" it, should we find it necessary to do a secession.
The big question I would have, is if there would be a way to have enlistees immune to a federal draft. That would definitely be a battle of jurisdiction. If a draft did come, it would also give conscientious objectors an alternative rather than trying to fight the issues of being drafted, if a way to legally challenge federal authority would be found here.
Given that Bush turned down federal funding to get rid of the fire hazards that were created by the bark beetle in federal parklands here that largely contributed to the wildfires here a year ago or so, perhaps there could be some legal precedent that would allow us to do something like take over that parkland if the feds aren't adequately funding it. Perhaps other programs and resources could be handled the same way. The fed's long delayed response to this state's bipartisan congressional and state politician's request for assistance came in the day before the fires started.
|
theboss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 10:55 AM
Response to Original message |
5. They would go to jail for treason |
DBoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 11:01 AM
Response to Original message |
10. Now this is a real second amendment issue |
|
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
So states aren't allowed to form a "well regulated militia"?
Even the most narrow interpretation of the 2nd amendment should allow this.
|
Fenris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message |
14. Check the profile, kids. |
AlGore-08.com
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 12:15 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Illinois is suing over the plan to move an air national guard unit from IL |
|
to Indiana, which may or may not directly challenge this ruling.
I'm not sure, however, that y'all have really thought this through. Do you really want Jeb Bush to have control of a state army with tanks? Do you really want the governor of Ohio to have a similar army? Do you want South Carolina to have its own tanks, and then watch it secede after the fundies have succeeded in turning it into a Christian nation?
Do these state armies get to control their own nukes? Do you really want the Governor of Texas to have the ability to nuke those Godless heathens in New York City? Do you really want the states to get into arms races with each other?
Smirk will not be with us forever. There are other right wing menaces waiting in the wings. None of them need to have an army of their own.
|
cascadiance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-30-05 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. I think at this point, I'm more for not it being a military force... |
|
I would just want it to be people that we could deploy here in California if needed for things like fighting fires, etc. and various tools like helicopters to help with those sorts of things. I would think at this point we'd want to keep too much military weaponry out, but I still at some point wonder if there will be a time when California leads the blue states into secession. We're still a ways away from that, but with the way things have been going the last few years, I'd like to feel prepared if that became necessary.
We'll need to be ready at that point with some force of bodies to function as a domestic military. If we have this militia, even if they haven't had a huge amount of control or experience with big military hardware, they'd be a cohesive group that you already have signed up for service to the state, which could help you be half way there.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 10:36 PM
Response to Original message |