Thread: Plan to deploy guards worry Mexico!

OMFG This stuff really all pisses me off!

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

CountFloyd, I predict he will say it. I truly do. THIS is a very predictable president. They are easy to predict when they're crazy. And this one is certainly crazy.

Poor man. He NEEDS help. We are obligated to get him the help he needs. The question is HOW.

There is ONE way. Impeachment.

Wouldn't it be the most "humane and compassionate" thing for US to do??

Well, I see that he did say it, although it was changed to "jobs Americans aren't doing" this time.

The amazing thing is that he said he spent two weeks working on this speech! I guess the National Guard stuff was hard for him, because that was the only thing he hasn't said 1000 times before.

Originally Posted by Jezzabell

It is and always has been my understanding that the National Guard were created to serve and protect here in the USA. Any cival unrest, disaster, or attacks to ****ry or state. That is what they were created for and have always been used for.

On the contrary it has never been the purpose of the National Guard to act as a reserve to wars outside this country.

you are absolutely correct.

In 1916, Congress decided to "federalize" the militia and created the National Guard as a reserve component of the U.S. Army under the National Defense Act of 1916 (32 U.S. C. § 305(1982)).

In 1952 a gubernatorial consent requirement for federalization of the National Guard was enacted and the "Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952" provided in part:

" . . . units and members of the National Guard of the United States or the [496 U.S. 334, 337] Air National Guard of the United States shall not be ordered to or required to serve on active duty in the service of the United States pursuant to this subsection without the consent of the Governor of the State or Territory concerned, or the Commanding General of the District of Columbia National Guard . . . "

After the Governor of Maryland invoked his ‘right' under the "Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952," in Maryland v. United States,381 U.S. 41, 46 (1965) the Supreme Court held:

"The authority to order the Guard to federal duty was limited to periods of national emergency until 1952, when Congress broadly authorized orders "to active duty or active duty for training" without any emergency requirement, but provided that such orders could not be issued without the consent of the governor of the State concerned. After two State Governors refused to consent to federal training missions abroad for their Guard units, the gubernatorial consent requirement was partially repealed in 1986 by the "Montgomery Amendment," which provides that a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty. The Governor of Minnesota and the State of Minnesota (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Governor) filed a complaint for injunctive relief, alleging, inter alia, that the Montgomery Amendment had prevented him from withholding his consent to a 1987 federal training mission in Central America for certain members of the State Guard, and that the Amendment violates the Militia Clauses of Article I, 8, of the Constitution, which authorize Congress to provide for (1) calling forth the militia to execute federal law, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and (2) organizing, arming, disciplining, and governing such part of the militia as may be employed in the federal service, reserving to the States the appointment of officers and the power to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. The District Court rejected the Governor's challenge, holding that the Federal Guard was created pursuant to Congress' Article I, 8, power to raise and support armies; that the fact that Guard units also have an identity as part of the state militia does not limit Congress' plenary authority to train the units as it sees fit when the Guard is called to active federal service; and that, accordingly, the Constitution neither required the gubernatorial veto nor prohibited its withdrawal. The Court of Appeals affirmed. [496 U.S. 334, 335]

In Perpich V. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)) the Supreme Court held

"The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States . . ." But in 1985, "the Governor of California refused to consent to a training mission for 450 members of the California National Guard in Honduras, and the Governor of Maine shortly thereafter refused to consent to a similar mission. Those incidents led to the enactment of the Montgomery Amendment and this litigation ensued."