On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 01:14:45AM +0000, Steven Schear wrote:

https://mises.org/wire/when-state-governors-tried-take-back-control-national... Article title: When State Governors Tried To Take Back Control of the National Guard …This isn't the first time the Department of Defense has essentially bribed state politicians into buckling under demands for total state acquiescence to Pentagon demands. ... Defense Department personnel began to develop a plan to remove all but a single unit of the National Guard form Ohio. Specifically: the Ohio Guard grossly underestimated what [National Guard Bureau Chief Lieutenant General Herbert R.] Temple had in mind for them. Most of them apparently believed they stood to lose the engineer brigade headquarters (including one general officer as the commander) and perhaps the subordinate engineer battalions. None, however, dreamed — it seems — that the Ohio National Guard could be made to disappear over a period of a very few months except for only the 73rd Infantry Brigade. And. in particular, that the Ohio Air National Guard could be made to cease to exist. The primary purpose of all of this was to use the Pentagon's financial power to take resources out of the state, thus reducing state revenue and economic activity generated by federal spending inside the state. The local media began running stories about how the move would lead to lost jobs. Moreover, the Pentagon's move would have forced the state to fund all of its own remaining National Guard units. The bill would have been $256 million. Eventually, the governor caved, and the Ohio National Guard deployed as the Defense Department wished. In 1990, the US Supreme Court sided with the Department of Defense, and ruled the Montgomery Amendment was binding.

OK, the first part of that article is about state governors/parliaments introducing bills (statutes) to limit federal military authority over state militia forces (basically, state armies which now seem to be referred to as "national guard"). The second part seems almost identical in principle. To paraphrase: state parliament authority over "their own" militia ("per-state 'national' guard") gets killed by the federal govt. with "sure, but the Fed/DoD will punish you financially if you pass that..." IOW, the federal parliament, in practice, retains primary authority over the state militias/ national guards. This is not what we call a problem for Trump, rather a benefit. Also, in the present case the issue is not foreign deployment, simply intra-state deployment (not even inter-state deployment) - the only question being whether this deployment is 'under' Federal or state authority... and possumably if by Federal authority, then inter-state deployment may actually be wise, e.g. send GA nat.guard to PA, and vice versa, to maximise objectivity in running a military/nat.guard monitored (integrity enforced) paper-only re-election, to once and for all end this dispute. Just as SCOTUS has "original jurisdiction" in many matters, so too does the president have original jurisdiction in matters of declaring a national state of emergency, especially when such declaration has clear and strong historical precedent (Abe Lincoln), and where Trump, having dutifully and diligently exhausted all other avenues (e.g. courts, faithless electors etc), is left with no other practical and timely option to defend the union, under the constitution of the United States of America, from all enemies both foreign and domestic/ internal! We will not give up our righteous struggle for truth and justice! Oh, and none of this directly affects a people's' militia/ citizen's' militia existing outside of statute law. But the "Fed financial punishment" stick must most likely still be carefully considered, where relevant. And further, as stated, extra-statutory people's' militias don't seem to exist yet... The third part of the above linked article states: Why the Pentagon Has so Much Power Over State Troops Today, when the militia clause of the Second Amendment is mentioned, it is not uncommon to hear the claim that "the National Guard is the militia." This stretches the truth, to say the least. Today's National Guard is nothing like the independent state militias that existed throughout the nineteenth century up until the adoption of the Militia Act of 1903. Prior to the 1903 act, state militias were primarily state funded, and were not integrated into the federal government's military structure except in times of declared war. The Militia Act created a new type of "militia" which replaced the old decentralized model with a new system in which state National Guard units were to receive federal funding and were to be integrated into the national military as a permanent reserve force. But even after 1903, the state National Guards retained a high degree of independence compared to today. That was further eroded with the National Defense Act of 1916 which allowed National Guard United to be deployed outside their own states — and even outside the country — for much longer periods of time than had been previously allowed. The 1916 Act further increased federal funding — and thus federal control — over National Guard units. Another major change came in 1933. At that time, new amendments to the National Defense Act were passed which made members of the National Guard units members of both their state's National Guard, and the federal military. Further integration occurred throughout the following decades, culminating with the adoption of the "Total Force Policy" in 1970. According to Burgess, et al., this meant National Guard units became fully "woven into the fabric of the Defense establishment." By 1986, the idea of an independent state National Guard was all but dead. As we have seen, some governors briefly tried to revive the idea, but it was struck down by the courts, and by the Pentagon's immense power over military resources within each state. ... IOW, the states tried to have their cake of federal subsidies and federal money (e.g. federal manufacturing in that state), and eat it too with unilateral state control over those resources. It was morally right for the courts to rule against such deluded wishful thinking... For future reference, a much more probable "low hanging fruit" in this type of issue is to run a referendum of the people - just be sure to properly inform your state constituents so they know the price the federal govt. will cause them to pay; considering that price, the simplest way might be to build that independence: - each state should, to the extent practical, vertically integrate (same for each country) With such a (robust) principal lived to a high degree, then entities such as USA states (and other countries) can bid/ contract/ provide services to external authorities (such as the USA federal govt.) on a basis of dignity and mutual benefit. This only requires people who live in such a way/ in their hearts. In summary, independence of anything, requires actual, rather than nominal, independence. In practice today actual independence means independence: - financially - in relation to resources: food, materials, people etc - politically Financial and resource dependence, means deferring (or subjugation to) the authority of the one paying the bills. The same will ultimately be the case for any other or similar authority, including any extra-statutory (yet constitutional) people's' militia: if your armed militia members are surviving on government "welfare" payments, expect those payments to stop, as a last resort, should your member's' "welfare" be deemed no longer important to "your" federal government :D Many folks today want shortcuts, instant gratification - there ain't no such thing when it comes to 'real' authority - either you are actually living your authority, surviving and being independent in at least some relevant ways, or you are a deluded slave . . .