National Guard Living In Parking Garage In Democrat-Run D.C.: ‘We Feel Incredibly Betrayed

[Quantrill]

You are wrong.

Have you ever served in the military? If so, in what capacity?

I don't think so.

The national guard does not replace the militia or the need for a militia.

That the Guard can be called up by either State or Federal shows that it does not replace the militia. That the Guard was sent overseas during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars shows that it is not a militia.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Quantrill [
Jon has referenced Title 10 and 32 to explain his POV
Unless I missed it, have you provided any govt references to explain your POV?

See post #(43) for my point of view.

Quantrill

 

[Squire Robertsson]

 

[JonC]

I don't think so.

The national guard does not replace the militia or the need for a militia.

That the Guard can be called up by either State or Federal shows that it does not replace the militia. That the Guard was sent overseas during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars shows that it is not a militia.

Quantrill

You ate right that the National Guard does not replace the State Militia. Each State also maintains what is called the State Guard. The State Guard is under the State, never the Federal government and cannot operate outside of the state.

The National Guard grew out of State militias (it is the oldest military service in the US because of that source). But it became the National Guard (an early version of today's National Guard) in 1903 with the Dick Act.

I taught this for almost 12 years to ROTC and JROTC students (and one high school Military Science class). You are bringing back memories.

 

[Quantrill]

You ate right that the National Guard does not replace the State Militia. Each State also maintains what is called the State Guard. The State Guard is under the State, never the Federal government and cannot operate outside of the state.

The National Guard grew out of State militias (it is the oldest military service in the US because of that source). But it became the National Guard (an early version of today's National Guard) in 1903 with the Dick Act.

I taught this for almost 12 years to ROTC and JROTC students (and one high school Military Science class). You are bringing back memories.

The Governors of the States can upon request send the National Guard to another state. But they can also deny that request. And they can certainly recall them.

I am glad Governor Abbott of Texas recalled ours due to their treatment there. And as I have said, hopefully, when anymore requests are made the governors of the states will take that into consideration.

For this Harris/Biden administration, the guard will simply be the eventual storm troopers. Thus the blue states will comply but the red states, hopefully will not.

Quantrill

 

[JonC]

The Governors of the States can upon request send the National Guard to another state. But they can also deny that request. And they can certainly recall them.

I am glad Governor Abbott of Texas recalled ours due to their treatment there. And as I have said, hopefully, when anymore requests are made the governors of the states will take that into consideration.

For this Harris/Biden administration, the guard will simply be the eventual storm troopers. Thus the blue states will comply but the red states, hopefully will not.

Quantrill

Yes. Governors can send troops to other states and they can recall them. This is very common. We helped in New Orleans, for example, in the recovery from the hurricane. And often this ends up being federally funded (especially when it is a natural disaster) as the federal government can send funds to states (not directly paying the troops, they are still title 32).

And the Defense Department with NGB could request that the Governors send troops to DC for security (which they did). The Governors do not have to send them, and if they do they can recall them. Since this is through NGB the state will be funded for the deployment, however the troops will be Title 32 under the authority of the Governor of their states.

BUT if the President calls up the National Guard (not requests, but federalizes the troops) then the Governor has no say so. He can neither deny the act or recall the troops because the National Guard belongs to the State and the Federal Government (the President is the Commander in Chief of the National Guard, as is the Governor).

The State Guard does not operate outside of the individual state. They are often called up by the Governor on a volunteer basis (they are not paid until they are actually working for the state) to man units when the National Guard is called up for federal service (for military deployments).

 

[Salty]

See post #(43) for my point of view.

That was the early 1800'
Major changes happened to the National Guard in the 1900's

Why is it that someone who has not spend one day in the military thinks that
they know so much more about the military, then an individual who actually
worked in that area of expertise and retired.

One last thing, do you remember what happened when Gov Wallace called up the Guard in 1963? Stand in the Schoolhouse Door - Wikipedia.

And the Major Gen involved in this:Due to the service component intricacies of the National Guard versus federalized status, while a Major General in the National Guard, Graham was twice appointed as Brigadier General in the Army of the United States in order to perform federalized duties under the authority of the President of the United States. The first occurrence was on June 11, 1963, and again on September 13, 1963; both events were in connection with federalization due to civil rights tensions in Alabama.
Henry V. Graham - Wikipedia

 

[Salty]

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The Court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia," as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7)... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally-organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[107]

BTW - The State militia - ie State Guards, are not paid for training - only if called up by the Governor.

In fact - Q - Why dont you join the State Guard?

 

[Salty]

Jon - check this out:
In 2017, Alaska State Defense Force members, in their first ever deployment outside of the state, provided support to relief efforts in Puerto Rico alongside Alaska National Guardsmen after Hurricane Maria and Irma caused extensive damage to the island. State and National Guardsmen provided communications support at a Joint Incident Site Communications Capability system.[8] (bold my emphasis)
Alaska State Defense Force - Wikipedia

 

[Salty]

 

[Benjamin]

Guardsmen have two bosses- the Governor and the President. Either can call them up.

I've heard a report that President Trump signed the Insurrection Act and gave authority to the Pentagon and that it was in fact them who called up the NG. I might add to that that the Pentagon is currently blocking Biden's incoming administration from certain information which is unprecedented in modern presidential transitions. Just sayin.

 

[Salty]

I've heard a report that President Trump signed the Insurrection Act and gave authority to the Pentagon and that it was in fact them who called up the NG. I might add to that that the Pentagon is currently blocking Biden's incoming administration from certain information which is unprecedented in modern presidential transitions. Just sayin.

Do you have a link for that report?

 

[Benjamin]

Do you have a link for that report?

Not saying I find all this credible, however some things do add up.
From a Google search "Pentagon blocks Biden", Politico:
‘Really quite shocking’: Inside the ugly transition at the Pentagon
‘Really quite shocking’: Inside the ugly transition at the Pentagon

Not the same video I saw because I can't get a link to it. but this is some of the same "info":

 

[JonC]

I've heard a report that President Trump signed the Insurrection Act and gave authority to the Pentagon and that it was in fact them who called up the NG. I might add to that that the Pentagon is currently blocking Biden's incoming administration from certain information which is unprecedented in modern presidential transitions. Just sayin.

That is not what is reported (what is reported is that the Governors sent their troops at the request of the Defense Department to NGB which would not be a Presidential call up but Title 32).

The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy the military on U.S. soil to stop an insurrection. President Trump threatened to put this Act in place with the riots over the summer (but the situation did not meet the authority for him to do so, and he didn't).

What the Act does is it gives the US Military the authority to stop insurrection or domestic violence (and the room to make those decisions for themselves). It is not a call up of the military (it is not even the president deploying troops on US soil). This happened with the Los Angeles riots in 1992 with Army, Marines and the National Guard being deployed. But if this happens it is just like any other military deployment. The President does not deploy troops. Military leaders decide on a course of action and deploy troops as they see fit (in 1992 they used those three services).

And to do so the President has to follow a series of steps (which was not done). Had the riots continued, the states not declined help, and proclamations made then President Trump could have used the Insurrection Act....but any of the other branches of government could have stopped him. It was an empty gesture.

 

[Benjamin]

That is not what is reported...

Some people would disagree with you on what is being reported and what is not and have a different view than you. Scroll up. I'll let others decide what to believe according to the information that we are allowed to receive. I don't have all the answers like you and although like I said, "Not saying I find all this credible," I prefer to keep an open mind about where the truth lies, if that is alright with you.

 

[JonC]

Some people would disagree with you on what is being reported and what is not and have a different view than you. Scroll up. I'll let others decide what to believe according to the information that we are allowed to receive. I don't have all the answers like you and although like I said, "Not saying I find all this credible," I prefer to keep an open mind about where the truth lies, if that is alright with you.

Keep an open mind, but be careful not to ignore facts in favor of conspiracy theories.

I like the article you posted.

There are facts (like Biden can call up the National Guard and the Governor has absolutely no say in the issue), and then there are opinions (like what would justify a President to use the Insurrection Act, if he could regardless of the wishes of the state, etc.).

I have found that people tend to get their news from organizations that say what they want to hear (on all sides). But the actual facts are easy to find.

 

[Benjamin]

But the actual facts are easy to find.

Be careful not to discount the growing power of the media and Big Tech to govern which "facts" you are able to find. Thus, the open mind.

 

[JonC]

Be careful not to discount the growing power of the media and Big Tech to govern which "facts" you are able to find. Thus, the open mind.

I understand.

By "facts" I mean real facts (what the media will twist or present in half-truths).

The reason I know about Title 10 and Title 32 us that was my line of work for the last half of my military career (until the end of 2014).

I had to deal with the fact we could not recall a soldier that had been called up to Title 10. If the federal component was willing we could request a "state recall" for an individualsoldier, but we could not just recall a unit from deployment.

I have seen two sides if the Insurrection Act. I do not know how it would play out had Trump used it.

It is kind of like impeching a former President. I see both sides of the argument but do not know how it would pan out (it seems like a huge waste of time, money, and resources that could be used to help the American people).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

While there may be only two restrooms built into the parking garage, I kinda doubt the unit commanders didn't get a hold of a sufficient amount of Port-a-Potties to service their troops.

 

[Quantrill]

Yes. Governors can send troops to other states and they can recall them. This is very common. We helped in New Orleans, for example, in the recovery from the hurricane. And often this ends up being federally funded (especially when it is a natural disaster) as the federal government can send funds to states (not directly paying the troops, they are still title 32).

And the Defense Department with NGB could request that the Governors send troops to DC for security (which they did). The Governors do not have to send them, and if they do they can recall them. Since this is through NGB the state will be funded for the deployment, however the troops will be Title 32 under the authority of the Governor of their states.

BUT if the President calls up the National Guard (not requests, but federalizes the troops) then the Governor has no say so. He can neither deny the act or recall the troops because the National Guard belongs to the State and the Federal Government (the President is the Commander in Chief of the National Guard, as is the Governor).

The State Guard does not operate outside of the individual state. They are often called up by the Governor on a volunteer basis (they are not paid until they are actually working for the state) to man units when the National Guard is called up for federal service (for military deployments).

Governors can't send troops to other states unless the Governor of other states requests them. And that can be denied by the Governor.

The Defense Department, or the President can request. But the Governors can deny.

If the President 'federalizes' the Guard, then the Governor does have a say still. He, the President, can't federalilze and use the Guard against another state or for use in another state. Posse Comitatus Act. Even then, Governors still have a say. In 1980 Reagan sought to send the National Guard into Central America. Several Democratic Governors refused.

In 2020 several Democratic Governors refuse Trumps call to send troops, National Guard, to the states where rioting was taking place. And the Governor of Illinois warned Trump that no troops should be sent to his state.

In 2018, Governors of 8 states would refuse or recall Guard troops sent to protect the Border Wall with Mexico.

In other words, I am proud of Governor Abbott of Texas in recalling the Guard. In Hind sight, he never should have sent the Guard. Hopefully, these are lessons learned.

Quantrill