The General Political Thread

[Toffee]

trump got Kanye playlist on repeat

[DaMonkey]

Not for the Federal Government. They've got enough bodies to throw into other people's wars.

[Duuring]

Not for the Federal Government. They've got enough bodies to throw into other people's wars.

Since they're federalizing the NG all the time, I guess not.

[DaMonkey]

Considering the actual extent to which Governors have control of National Guard units, I consider the National Guard part of the Federal Army regardless if they're activated or not.

[Duuring]

It's legally impossible to create a state armed forces that cannot be called up by the federal government in certain circumstances. Even the State Defence Forces are state militias which the president can technically 'federalize'. Not that he will, because they're useless.

[DaMonkey]

State Defense Forces cannot be federalized without the Governor's compliance; however, the members of a State Defense Force aren't exempt from a Selective Service draft.

ie. even if you're in a State Defense Force, you can individually be called into Federal enlistment.

Edit The Supreme Court did touch on the matter, and said "the President should be able to raise the State Militia" but at the same time refused to actually rule in favor of it - basically just putting it off. So if it came to it, literally who knows which "side" would prevail in the argument. I'm not well read into all the precedence, but at least in the Civil War even 'Big Fed' Lincoln thought Kentucky's governor was in his right to refuse to furnish troops to suppress the rebellion.

[TheBoberton]

It's legally impossible to create a state armed forces that cannot be called up by the federal government in certain circumstances. Even the State Defence Forces are state militias which the president can technically 'federalize'. Not that he will, because they're useless.

[Duuring]

Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

He can't federalize them willy-nilly, but he can federalize them.

So if it came to it, literally who knows which "side" would prevail in the argument

That's assuming there's time to go to court. In reality, it would take years, and it's very unlikely any president would just politely wait for what the court decides in case of a rebellion. That being said, he won't federalize any state militias because, once again, they're basically useless for anything but support, so it would be much easier just to form new federal units. This whole discussion was relevant a century ago when the US Army was much smaller and the militia much larger.

[TheBoberton]

Now we get into the fun realm of whether or not the constitution or more recent federal law apply. That said, if we're at the point that a President is even considering trying to mobilize state forces, they've either probably already been mobilized by their respective states, or their ranks have been so decimated by conscription that they'd be a shell of what they once were.

That being said, he won't federalize any state militias because, once again, they're basically useless for anything but support, so it would be much easier just to form new federal units.

I don't get the European disdain for militias, personally. (Militias in this case referring to SDFs, or proper organizations that have actual entry requirements; not Bob and his buddies running around backwoods Tennessee pretending to be operators and calling themselves a militia)

[joer5835]

I don't get the European disdain for militias, personally. (Militias in this case referring to SDFs, or proper organizations that have actual entry requirements; not Bob and his buddies running around backwoods Tennessee pretending to be operators and calling themselves a militia)

For a start, most European countries do not have a strong tradition of a federalized form of government. Germany is perhaps the most decentralized and federal of all western European nations and even they are considered pretty centralized compared to the US. As such, there is no local authority to set up militia units. The only authority that could are national governments and they have no reason at all to raise a militia. They'll just raise another professional military unit if they need more men.

[Duuring]

Now we get into the fun realm of whether or not the constitution or more recent federal law apply. That said, if we're at the point that a President is even considering trying to mobilize state forces, they've either probably already been mobilized by their respective states, or their ranks have been so decimated by conscription that they'd be a shell of what they once were.

True, the whole argument is kinda of a moot point.

I don't get the European disdain for militias, personally. (Militias in this case referring to SDFs, or proper organizations that have actual entry requirements; not Bob and his buddies running around backwoods Tennessee pretending to be operators and calling themselves a militia)

It's not a disdain, it's a fact that the State Militias serve almost exclusively humanitarian and disaster relief roles. Their combat training is extremely limited, and phyisical and other requirements are lower then that of the army, sometimes no requirements even exist at all. It makes sense, of course, because Tennessee is not going to need combat-ready troops to fight Kentucky anywhere in the near future. Creating combat-role troops would be a complete waste of money.

If there is a European disdain for militias, it might have something to do with certain events in the 1930s.

For a start, most European countries do not have a strong tradition of a federalized form of government. Germany is perhaps the most decentralized and federal of all western European nations and even they are considered pretty centralized compared to the US. As such, there is no local authority to set up militia units. The only authority that could are national governments and they have no reason at all to raise a militia. They'll just raise another professional military unit if they need more men.

I think TheBoBerton is referring to non-state units.

[DaMonkey]

Like I said in regards to your quotes on the constitutional phrases, the Supreme Court refused to actually rule on them is what I'm saying. Nowadays, court and historical precedent is often times perceived as more important - you can look at the stretching of the interstate commerce clause by courts and legal precedent as an example. If a Governor said "no", the Governor's decision would stand a very good chance of being upheld simply due to precedent - regardless of what's in the Constitution - which applies to most things these days, which is sad.

In regards to combat effectiveness, they actually highly vary. Most are used just as a disaster-relief force, though States like Texas, Tennessee, and South Carolina have 'combat' components that get the same type of training National Guardsmen do (weapons training, and the "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" drilling).

Also I'm pretty sure Thomas specifically stated he was talking about State militias.

[Duuring]

What historic precedent is there on federalizing state militias? I have no recollection of any, and if there are, precedents can be changed. There's nothing stopping a president from pointing at the Federal law (Because it isn't in the constitution, but in the Insurrection Act) that specifically allows him to federalize state militias and having the governor arrested for treason. It's much like the issue of secession which wasn't technically wasn't really illegal until 1867, seven years after Lincoln said it was and fought a war over it. There had been decades of discussion on whether states could secede and it was a war that decided it. And it's not really hard to imagine who would win a tug-of-war-match between the president and a state governor.

[TheBoberton]

No one?

[Duuring]

Remember the last time a state declared itself 'neutral' during a rebellion? Didn't last very long, did it?