🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <E9F1II.5ry@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, mfn8j@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU 
says...
>
>In regards to the National Guard, I agree with John.  What we
>now call the National Guard is the modern incarnation of a well
>regulated militia.  The fact that the DOD spends money on the
>National Guard in no way waives its primary responsibility to
>the state government.  That federal funding is a contract between
>states and the feds, freely entered into by each party.  If the
>President deems it necessary to send Guardsmen overseas, he has
>to clear it with the Governor first.

from "Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)" (from the official 
Sylabus, rather than the opinion of the Court, but it's a good summary, the 
entire decision can be found at
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/perpich.txt 
)


"Held: Article I's plain language, read as a whole, establishes that
     Congress may authorize members of the National Guard of the
     United States to be ordered to active federal duty for
     purposes of training outside the United States Without either
     the consent of a State Governor or the declaration of a
     national emergency.  Pp. 347-355.
       (a)  The unchallenged validity of the dual enlistment system
     means that Guard members lose their state status when called
     to active federal duty, and, if that duty is a training
     mission, the training is performed by the Army.  During such
     periods, the second Militia Clause is no longer applicable. 
     Pp. 347-349.
       (b) This view of the constitutional issue was presupposed by
     the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366, 375, 377, 381-
     384, which held that the Militia Clauses do not constrain
     Congress' Article I, section 8, powers to provide for the
     common defense, raise and support armies, make rules for the
     governance of the Armed Forces, and enact necessary and proper
     laws for such purposes, but in fact provide additional grants
     of power to Congress.  Pp. 349-351.
       (c)  This interpretation merely recognizes the supremacy of
     federal power in the military affairs area and does not
     significantly affect either the State's basic training
     responsibility or its ability to rely on its own Guard in
     state emergency situations.  Pp. 351-352.
       (d) In light of the exclusivity of federal power over many
     aspects of military affairs, see Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. 397,
     the powers allowed to the States by existing statutes are
     significant.  Pp. 353-354.
       (e)  Thus, the Montgomery Amendment is not inconsistent with
     the Militia Clauses.  Since the original gubernatorial veto
     was not constitutionally compelled, its partial repeal by the
     Amendment is constitutionally valid.  Pp. 354-355."

>
>The fact that a Governor generally yields that authority
>without question is purely due to the hamonious nature of our
>government at all its different levels.

IOW , you don't have clue. Even before Perpich, the Governor had no veto over 
federal activation of the Guard. The Perpich case determined that even 
active-duty for training (which is supposed to be the responsibility of the 
States, under the Constituion) was beyond the authority of the Governor.

Guard, and Reserve for that matter, members serve in one of three 
statuses(statii??). Inactive Duty training (usually weekend Drill), 
Active-Duty for Training (typically the two week "Summer Camp") and active 
duty. In the last status, active duty, members *become* part of the active 
military, they are issued new (green) ID cards to replace the Red ones they 
carry when in either "training" status.  

Prior to Perpich it was assumned that the Guard "belonged to" and answered to 
the governor when not federalized, or called to active duty. Perpich 
established that even when ordered to  active duty for training, the governor 
had no control. I suspect that the same would have been held for inactive duty 
training status, if for example a governor objected to his Guard being used 
for Drug interdiction work as part of their inactive duty training. 

For the guard there is another status, state active duty, used mostly for 
emergency relief and the like. In this status the troops do answer to the 
state chain of command. 

 
>-- 
>Maximillian F Natzet, Combat Botanist
>        North American Combat Botany Institute
>        University of Virginia    Charlottesville, VA
>http://watt.seas.Virginia.EDU/~mfn8j/

-- 
              The Second Amendment is the RESET button 
                   of the United States Constitution.  
                          ---Doug McKay" <mckay003@maroon.tc.umn.edu> 
Joe Sylvester
Don't Tread On Me !