Force Structure for Small Wars

[Ken White]

This is the only thing I could find regarding the National Guard by the court system as the militia from 1988. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...overnors%20(US)

having worked the Central American training issues back at that time -- roads in Honduras, mostly -- IIRC, the intial ruling was overruled on Appeal (mostly because it interfered with ArNG deployments to the REFORGER Exercises in Europe). In any event, Overseas Deployment Training (ODT) at Fedral direction continued without a hitch into the mid-90s when it got hit with funding cuts.

Note in the linked article that the 8th Circuit found for the Governor and the 1st Circuit had earlier found for the Feds. I don't recall the sequencing but I do know that ODT kept going.

[120mm]

If we go back to some of the foundational documents, "the militia" is generally described as "all able-bodied men between the age of 18-55". Basically, if you fit the above description, you IS the militia.

Now, where is my assault rifle and my banjo???

The Guard is a federally-embodied force, cut to the mythical control of the respective states.

[Ski]

Also look at the Dick Act for additional info.

There is legal linkage between the Consitution and the Guard - it's been established, there are many years of precedent.

The Army Reserve was created for medical personnel right a few years before WWI. Their role has morphed and expanded, just like the Guard's.

[Ken White]

...There is legal linkage between the Consitution and the Guard - it's been established, there are many years of precedent.

many years -- like the 105 since the Dick Act was passed and the many changes to Title 32 since that time to cement the 'relationship.' . The previous 116 show no linkage at all. I'm fully aware of all the arguments but the bottom line is that the Guard is the Militia by Statute, not IAW the Constitution -- and I'm not arguing with or disparaging that or the Guard, it's just a matter of fact and it should be no big thing.

The Army Reserve was created for medical personnel right a few years before WWI. Their role has morphed and expanded, just like the Guard's.

Also true...

[selil]

many years -- like the 105 since the Dick Act was passed and the many changes to Title 32 since that time to cement the 'relationship.' . The previous 116 show no linkage at all. I'm fully aware of all the arguments but the bottom line is that the Guard is the Militia by Statute, not IAW the Constitution -- and I'm not arguing with or disparaging that or the Guard, it's just a matter of fact and it should be no big thing.Also true...

Ken it may not say in the Constitution "National Guard" the SCOTUS seems to read it that way. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution but the SCOTUS and even rabid Roberts says it is inherent in the forgotten 9th amendment. Framers intent is more than the words on the page and SCOTUS interpretation is a big deal. To be honest I don't like the militia interpretation as being the Guard as it erodes the personal protection/revolution aspects in the second amendment.


ETA: Can you tell I'm Jeffersonian versus Adams adherent? LOL

[Ken White]

Ken it may not say in the Constitution "National Guard" the SCOTUS seems to read it that way...

it does not track with my observation or experience. I think we're making an issue where none exists. The Constitution does not define the Militia; The Dick Act and Title 32 say the Militia is the NG. There is no SCOTUS decision of which I'm aware that changes this Law LINK or corroborates your statement.

OTOH, this law LINK may be subject to challenge in the future but based on most prior Court decisions, I suspect it'll remain the law...

I'm not at all sure what the issue is here???

[selil]

No issue on my part. Just a different view point. From mine I'm trying to identify an entity in the government that has domestic as well as foreign powers, legal authority to enforce laws, can span the width and depth of military missions and law enforcement missions, has access to all of the tools and gizmos necessary, and not require a substantive over haul of the current law base.

[120mm]

To be honest I don't like the militia interpretation as being the Guard as it erodes the personal protection/revolution aspects in the second amendment.

ETA: Can you tell I'm Jeffersonian versus Adams adherent? LOL

Too bad we don't have a "giving the high five" emoticon, because I'm doing that with you, right now.

I "believe" the Commonwealth of Virginia constitution, as well as The Federalist Papers define "the militia" as basically everyone who is able.

It also falls in line with certain community traditions of universal communal service.

And there is no doubt in my mind that Amendment Two was designed at least partially as a foil to the power of the state. It was truncated when they condensed the 14 original amendments into 10 for marketing reasons, at least if my undergrad-level American History memory doesn't fail me....