It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does the Federal Gov. have constitutional authority to deploy national guard units overseas?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 12:02 PM
Does anyone know by what legal authority the Federal government can deploy National Guard units overseas? I thought NG units were internal state militias used for emergency use in natural disasters as well as to defend the homeland in case of attack if the regular army was busy elsewhere. Could it be that the PTB wants national guard units out of the way so that they can't be used to resist any kind of Martial Law/State of Emergency assumption of police state powers? What if State governors ordered their guard units to return home asap?

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:26 PM
No Clue. i talked to a recruiter about that and he basically gave me a "they can do with you what they want" type answer.

I'd be glad to join should I not be able to be shipped overseas, but I do not think that is the case.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:20 PM
The Federal government has authority to do so.

Remember the Federal Government's authority to assume direct control of the State's militias (Guardsmen) supersedes the Governor's control because the Commander in Chief is Federal. The constitutional mandate has been upheld by the Supreme Court and was actually challenged during the segregationist days of "Brown vs. The Board of Education" where the Governor refused to enforce the law, and the Fed's forced the State to comply while mobilizing its own militia to protect the people.

State's Governors retain the authority to activate its militia but does not have the supreme control of the Commander in chief.

"Dual Sovereignty" was key to Federalism, we are not just citizens of our state, we are also citizens of the Union.

Each State's Governor however, does appear to have to release it's guardsmen to the common defense undertaken by the regular military forces, under Federal command. But they really have little choice. No "conditions" must be met before such a thing can happen.

I may be mistaken, but the Federal government's ultimate masters, the Supreme Court, the Legislature, and the Executive branch must agree that a legal state of war (or emergency?) exists. For the most part, considering party relationships and loyalties driven by 'other agendas', the Governor's are powerless to refuse the call. ("Authorization to use Military Force 115 stat 224" - post 9/11 legislation.)

National Guardsmen are "us". Always remember that. Professional military are citizens who have offered up their lives in the common defense, full time. They agree to execute any and all legal orders, and represent the single most important element of the global standing of our sovereign nation (such as that sovereignty may be 'assumed'), National Guard are people who accept the responsibility of supporting this standing Military force, but they are militia, and thus they are ultimately under the authority of the Governor until called upon by the Commander in Chief.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by Maxmars]

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:37 PM
Dose the fed have the power to do most of what they do? Like give our money away to other country's, tax our earned income, I could go on but what would be the point. The american sheeple would still do nothing about it.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Ah but that's my point. Common defense at home sure but wars of aggression in foreign countries? As it stands, state guard units are right now guarding fields of poppy plants used to make opium. Why? because the warlords who grow the stuff are deemed to be anti-taliban allies. The Taliban are no angels but at least when they were in power, opium production in Afganistan dropped to almost nothing. Now we all KNOW that restarting opium production wasn't the REAL reason for attacking Afganistan.... right?

new topics

top topics

log in