Federal control of the National Guard faces overturning by a court ruling
One of the arguments being made against federal control of the National Guard is that the states complying with federal guidelines are doing so voluntarily. However, not complying with federal requirements could result in the federal government’s withdrawing federal funding for a state’s National Guard. One of the spinoffs of this argument involves state governors being able to protect non-federalized National Guard members from unusual federal requirements.
From the Military Times:
“What the ruling essentially says is that state compliance with federal guidelines is completely voluntary,” said Jeff Jacobs, a retired Army Reserve two-star general, attorney and author of a 1994 book analyzing the Guard’s dual control structure. “And the only recourse the federal government has — because Texas did not dispute this — is to withdraw funding for [the state’s] National Guard.”
Jacobs warned this decision at its “logical conclusion” allows governors to block military personnel requirements, offering free rein to protect non-federalized Guard members from military punishments for everything from marijuana use to fitness tests. But even under the ruling, troops must meet all federal requirements to join.
“It gives the governor[s] a veto to play politics with every single thing that the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Army or Air Force do,” the retired general warned.
Both the DoD and the National Guard Bureau declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. In an emailed statement, Abbott spokesperson Andrew Mahaleris said the governor “appreciate[s] the Fifth Circuit’s adherence to the rule of law, and Texas will not stop fighting until the brave men and women of our military receive the full benefits they have more than earned.”
The Abbott administration, later joined by Alaska’s governor, asked a federal judge in Tyler, Texas, to block the DoD’s vaccine mandate in January 2022.
In court filings, the governors claimed that “only the state, through its governor, possesses legal authority to govern state National Guard personnel” when not mobilized under federal control, regardless of who is cutting the drill checks.
Responding to the governors, the federal government contended it has the authority to set readiness requirements and enforce them. They contended that in order to receive federal pay and federal benefits — even when in a state-controlled, federally-funded Title 32 status — members of the Guard needed to comply with federal readiness requirements.
The Military Times has additional information.
Category: National Guard
Isn’t the vax mandate kind of moot now that the courts said it is only voluntary? Especially since two of them are no longer available in the US due to safety concerns.
This will definitely change the rhetoric when FJB decides to stay after the election and barricade himself in the White House. It could turn the “protectors” into a siege force if well planned.
Who was it that said they planned to fundamentally change America? Who was it also who said all they needed was an earpiece and a microphone to have a 3rd term, or something to that effect?
Fairly certain somebody will be by shortly to refute those statements.
I do believe that the limited power of a State against a Federal Grubermint issue was settled in favor of the Feds around 1865. How’s that worked out, overall? FeddotGuv will use the carrot of $ to bend the States to their will and the stick of removing said $ to make them comply. Remember the FeddotGuv mandatory 55 mph speed limit? Comply or no DOT $s for your roads. We are way beyond the point where a “local/State Militia” can fund itself as in the past. Remember, too, in the past when the Militia (later the National Guard) were the FIRST Troops called up when the standing army was so small. And back in the day, the Militia was nearly as well trained as the standing army with many Militia Units having drill twice a week v once a month as is now. The call up for Desert Storm showed many of the weaknesses of some units whose pencil whipped training records showed they were deployable when, in fact, the additional training and equipping they required meant that they were not. Can anyone say “Round Out Brigade”?
Personally, I believe that this is more about the overall control of troops by the FeddotGuv than it is about the $s. A State Guard Unit Nationalized and sent to another state for “riot control” may not hesitate to turn their weapons on the citizens of that “other state”. YMMV
We should be more concerned over the 1000s of military aged foreign males that are floating around, un-monitored, in this country than we are a pissing contest over National Guard Troops.
Prepare.
This itself is an abrogation on the limit of the Feral Gub’mint. Outside of limited excise and use taxes, and import duties; the other operating expenses are apportioned to the states.
ASSHOLES! READ THE MOTHER FUCKER!!
They should not have ‘money’ to spend. This shit is how we got in this mess, and I’m ‘fraid at this point a redo of CW/TWBTS is looking like the only remedy.
Fucking-A right doggie.
This doggie has the right idea…
“”Personally, I believe that this is more about the overall control of troops by the FeddotGuv than it is about the $s.”
Bet your sweet ass it is. Just like all the woke and gay shit being forced into and upon the ranks at present. It’s all about having as many military forces as possible remaining loyal to their federal masters when the Dems have stolen enough elections to pack the Supreme Court.
They will then use that “court” to attempt to seize all firearms, triggering a continent-wide rebellion during which they must control enough troops to prevail.
As wiser heads around her keep pointing out, it’s all about power and the means of control required to maintain it.
I don’t know about the legality of all this but when I was doing AC/RC (training the national guard, for you non-army speakers), I settled most debate by pointing at their chest and saying “doesn’t that say US Army?”
In the WWI timeframe when the US Army wanted to go big expeditionary they weren’t ready, which was kind of the point. In order be ready to go expeditionary they had to standardize equipment and training.
This moved most of the graft from the local level to the national level which made it easier for big business to get their extra slice of the pie.
Texas is a little different. They have their own State Guard and (which pays the lower enlisted much better than the National Guard when called to active duty, they make as much as an E7 w/ 8 years). Texas is a wealthy state and they tend not waste their limited tax dollars on dumb things. A lot of states can’t afford to pay their State Guard folks. They could if they wanted to and made it a priority, but they don’t.