I'm pretty sure I am. Check Title 32, USC Sec 101 Definitions -- in total, that is a slick statute designed to give the constitutional veneer to the Guards self adoption of the 'Militia' mantle but just skimming the definitions can give you a feel for the reality. The Constitution emphatically does not describe the Militia in terms applicable to the modern National Guard.
Most of those decisions you mention were from cases aimed at decreasing Federal Control of the Guard for many reasons, war, simple overseas deployment training in peace time, movement of equipment (and units), activation and inactivation of units and such like while enhancing the role of the Governor in an effort to keep the Guard more focussed on State missions or in the form the State wanted as opposed to that dictated by the Feds and NGB. Most failed on the simple logic that the Feds fund 90% of the net costs. A few succeeded on the basis that Title 32 says the Guard is the 'Militia.' None had any significant effect on what I said.
On the non-traditional missions, not sure what you mean but essentially, when the Guard is under State control, they can do whatever State Law says is legal. Obviously, if they're Federalized, Posse Comitatus and other laws apply. The Reserve is always Federal so they don't get the exception and State cover.
Bookmarks