Should the national army just be the 48 State’s National Guard?

[OddBeMe]

Wouldn’t that be the ultimate states rights? Let the states pay for it. Let the states decide to go to war, etc.

No keep the federal army

Yes, make the army by the states

[Drewtate]

That's really what the National Guard is already except in a time of war. The Federal government already has an army and the Marine Corp which is the size of the National Guard by itself and has an inventory the size of the British Army.

The Problem with National Guard started when the Federal Government starting deploying Guard units like regular Military units during the 20 years war on terror using. Whereas b4 the National Guard didn't deploy except in times of war successive administrations changed the laws on this so now the military can call them up whenever they want rather than the Guard being guarding the home front. It means that there is little incentive to being in the Guard, you may as well be in the regular military if you are going to end up doing 1-4 successive 12 month tours leaving your job, wife and kids, coming back with PTSD or debilitating injuries.

I think in emergencies at home the Guard should be in command of the state but also the federal government but in overall command of the US military so they can coordinate between states in defence and emergency. During emergencie politiciansare great at telling us how they are handling the situation but in reality its the first responsders and military thats doing it. The Federal government didn't have any foresight in deploying the Guard and the Guard suffers as there is little incentive for new recruits to join, or vetreans to stay or even to recruit those from the regular military that are finished their service but want to continue to serve their country but on a part time basis. We saw the folly of the federal government over using the national guard during Hurricane Katrina.

https://youtu.be/pgV6VUinDEAhttps://youtu.be/QeVt4j_T7-8

[Drewtate]

Also 22 states have "State Guard" which isn't part of the National Guard and can't be federalised, difference is they have to fund them themselves.

[monorprise]

@drewtate The Standing federal military is what competes with the National guard in offering a service that avoid the vital State responsibilities all together effectively Robing the State of that vital resource during disasters.

This is why organizations like the Army Reserve need to be totally abolished because we simply don't have the people anymore to avoid sharing. Ideally we would abolish most of the regular army for the same reason.

"State Guards" are simply State organized militia which the Federal goverment has agreed not to draft, They can be drafted like any part of the militia.

Declare war is a different issue, congress can, and Franky is suppose to rely upon the State's militia as the ONLY force to 'execute the laws of the union'. The reason for this is to allow states who unlike the Federal politicians actually have an interest in the limits of the Federal constitution some say in enforcing those limits.

[Anonymous]

This was how it worked for nearly all of American history prior to world war 2 in peace time.
Washington D. C. really just needs to maintain an officer core specialized in war-fighting, this is what institutions like west point are for.

Article 1 Section 8 clause 12 says: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

While Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 15 & 16 are about how congress can and does use the State militia for theses proposes in peace, and to raise an army in war.

[OddBeMe]

Yeah I think that’s what amendments are for. Changing the constitution. But you are correct on history. I heard it in a WW1 lecture.

[Drewtate]

Not sure but it's kind of like the draft during war time. If you are in the National Guard during war time you are basically drafted into the regular army.

[Opinion Owner]

@Drewtate Your not to far off, Constitutionally the Draft is based upon the premise that every man is a member of their State militia, regardless of their being in the National Guard organized part of said militia.

The National guard part however is in fact organized and trained unlike the vast unorganized part which theoretically includes the vast male population.

facts are in fact beside the point, The State constitutions allows the State to define, organize, and train their militia. The Federal Constitutions Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 &16 allows congress to provide for and call up the State militia for federal service.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12 lets Congress create a regular national army for periods up to 2 years, as to allow future congress's (elected every 2 years) to via mere neglect allow the same to collapse returning to the balance of power back to the many States.

Thus in theory a dictatorial President/federal goverment would lose the power to command the states after 2 years if the states failed to send a friendly congress.

[Drewtate]

In these matters we've seen that the federal government will just make legal whatever they want.
The first people that would actually be drafted in any future war is probably vetreans under 60 still fit for service the Retired Reserve and Individual Ready reserve. You may have served in the military and think yourself discharged out but could find yourself recalled to serve, this happened with WW2 vetreans when the army and Marines needed trained infantry vetreans at the start of the Korean war. There were a few IRR activations during the war on terror.
22 States have State Guards which are not part of the National Guard and can't be federalised. The reason states choose the National Guard over their own State Guard is because the Federal Government funds it and the US military trains and equips it and former US military personel will often join it rather than the US military reserves.

[Opinion Owner]

@Drewtate
We might agree veterans are likely the particular individuals among the militia the Feds will most want to draft first, that fact however is not important to how they do it.

Once again it is by mere agreement with congress that State guards (militia's) won't be called into federal service. They can be called and probably will be called if the Feds get desperate enough. Practicality however the State can evade such calls by simply having the members refuse to show up.
This is the whole point of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 officer selection and training.
So that the State can insure that the solders know and are loyal to the State.

[Drewtate]

Thing is you are quoting laws but the government just makes whatever they want legal. For instance women are currently immune from the draft but that could change in a week if there was a need.

[Opinion Owner]

@Drewtate Just because in practice the Federal Government no longer honors the terms of the constitution thus has no respect for the limits of our consent to be governed. Does not mean those limits don't exist and don't matter.

They represent the very real case we the people via our States have against that government's legitimacy. Theses abuses and usurpation must be noted, and talked about openly as to constantly remind that goverment in appeals for redress to give them a chance to correct themselfs.

It may be true they will never correct themselfs and that in the end when the weight of his long chain of abuses and usurpation can be bared no more, we will have to right yourself by thrown off this goverment. But absence their constant reminder and plee we have no moral case.

[Stoner710]

It’s a nice idea but we can’t do that. Technically we’re not even supposed to have a standing army. But if we did that we would basically be handing Eastern Europe back to you with the Russians and China would definitely take over Taiwan (and i speculate Vietnam Loas and Cambodia and Thailand) the United States needs a standing army given like what happened last time when the United States stepped away from the world stage WW1 and 2 happened.

[msc545]

NO, these people cannot be trusted. Worse than the feds.

[monorprise]

@msc545
Has not our Federal politicians proven in the last 100 years time and time again they can't be trusted?

At least by returning the military to its Natural peace time state, you have 49 other governs to appeal to if any one of them does what right now The president alone could to.

Placing all your eggs in 1 basket is the least trustworthy investment you can make.

[msc545]

The state governments are equally untrustworthy if not more. If they're more of them, that means more politicians to contend with all at once.

[monorprise]

@msc545

All goverment politicians are untrustworthy, the only difference is among the States, there are other States you can call on to help deal with them.

Alternatively because the union is soo big congress has no immediate need to deal with any particular non-cooperative state. They can opt to simply leave the issue to the people of said state, or go thou a slower court process, as there is more than enough resources from the cooperative ones to do any job.

The point is you have option to deal with untrustworthy politicians at the state level. You have almost no options if that politicians happens to be the president holding all the cards.

Risk management is about putting your eggs in many baskets for precisely this reason.

As long as we assume most politicians are good most of the time (which is what we generally observe), then we can be assured most governors will also be good and thus be able to help congress deal with the bad leaders.

[msc545]

@monorprise It has taken years to deal with Trump -what does that tell you?

[monorprise]

@msc545 Exactly what is that suppose to mean? You spent years trying to distory Trump spending millions of dollars, and playing every dirty trick possible including but not limited to proving the corruption of goverment instituitons like the FBI?
Yes, I know as do most Americans.

To get back on topic playing devils advocate suppose Trump was the man Democrats spent countless millions of dollars and propaganda to paint him as.

If Trump had known what you would do to him after he peacefully step down as every future president will now know, he would have had no reason not to use theses same vast powers as the sole man in charge of the worlds largest army to remain in power.

Lets be frank there is very little you could do to stop him in the near term, any military officer that refused would simply be replaced with a man loyal to him.
With a sizeable share of the country behind trump this would have been trivial for him to do.

If you think this can't happen then what is there to stop him? The Army under his direct control is soo powerful reltivie to any under the influence of anyone who might say no, such opposition would be totally crushed.

This is why Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12 exist with the 2 year limit, and why the State militia are suppose to be the ONLY standing force. Then at least the states who cast those electors would also hold a near majorly of the military power as well to back up that vote.

[msc545]

@monorprise Trump did not peacefully step down; he tried to illegally reverse the election and attacked the legal government.

[monorprise]

@msc545
If Trump had attempted to attack the legal goverment it would have been attacked and likely he would still be in office today.

I just told you exactly how trump could have used his total control of the enormous 'national' army to take over and secure power. And as we have foolishly created and mainlined such a large 'national' army under his direct command No president could easily be stoned.

The fact that Trump didn't even try to do this proves anyone who claims Trump didn't peacefully step down is telling us a very transparent lie. How is it that you expect me or anyone else to take what you say as serous when you make such clearly untrue claims?

Regardless that is not the point of this question.

The point is all future presidents have this means, an thanks to the raid on the former president and attempt to persecute him. All future presidents have a solid reason to want to do this.

If we don't deceleration the army so that a president no longer has such vast control, Its not a question of if we end up as a dictatorship but when.
If you ask me this is going to happen with in the next 6 presidents.

[msc545]

No Trump in fact did try to overturn the election and the fact that he was unsuccessful dies not mean he isn't guilty of anything. I think you are about to find this out in the next several months if the Republican corruption machine doesn't take over which in this case it actually may not. What will you say then if it doesn't?

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise what Trump army? All I saw were the Jan 6 fckers…

[monorprise]

@msc545
What Trump wanted was an investigation into the frankly very questionable and unprecedented conduct of the election.

For the first time in history in many states most votes didn't come on election day and in fact we have no believable way to know if they were in fact casts by voters as the voters intended. We have no idea what happened to them before they reached the election facility.

If Trump had wanted to remain in office by force he needed only order the army to secure the goverment for him, replacing any officer that refused said orders, as all other military coup's in presidential systems had taken place.

Instead his unarmed supporters merely protested in what was until that day formerly The people's own house. A place designed and build for that very propose.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise and he unprecedentedly got it. And you fcks just didn’t like the outcome.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe We don't trust the outcome, how could we? Via a new and unverifiable system a majority of 'votes' in were casts in key states. We have no way of knowing where those votes came form given how they were 'cast' via a black box.

[msc545]

@monorprise Right - any election conservatives lose is an indication the election was rigged, right?

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise but 2016 election…not rigged, of the people, USA won! No fraud. And Hillary still got 8 million more votes.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise what (cups ear)…. nothing about 2016?

[monorprise]

@msc545
No, the question is how you know who wins. That is a structural problem which in several states includes enormous black boxes thou which any fraud can take place, and there is simply no way to know.

[monorprise]

@oddBeMe the 2016 election was almost certantly rigged just not very successfully. They didn't have even a fraction of the number of access points available in 2020.

[msc545]

@monorprise evidence?

[monorprise]

@msc545
my reasoning is based mostly on the insecureable nature of many state elections. But if you want evidence I find the way democrats have the habit of consistently finding 'lost' votes at the last miniute in close elections quite presasive.

The fact that Florida banned this kind of behavior and has seriously become far more conservative as a result kind of underscores how common this dirty trick is. Basically forcing democrats to guess how many votes they need before the election as not make their own turn out look soo obviously wrong.

Not that they don't make mistakes like that, I remember a few different Colorado elections which had more voters than adults. Obviously not everyone is following the cheat guide book correctly. Still its not particularly challenging under the laws there of.

Today with large scale mail in voting its easier than ever to take advantage of the black box of the ever fraud prone U. S. postal service. You don't even have to rely upon corrupt local officials to help or look the other way.

[WhitneySnow]

Which states don’t have a national guard?

[OddBeMe]

I guess I was thinking the continental US. But true, I think all states have them.

[monorprise]

@WhitneySnow @OddBeMe
There is no State that doesn't have a national guard, most states also have many other forms of militia as well,.

Theses are generally the forces people see in Parade and pretty much the only military force available for used in emergencies. Such is why as a military force they are the most valuable of them all. They are vital to the state at all times not just war.

That said the main reason A1S8C12 limits the Federal army to short life is institutional security.

The federal army answers only to the president, where as the Militia (including the guard) practicably answers to the 50 governors as well as congress.

As such a President who refuses to step down from office could use a national army to secure his hold on power but most all of the governs could refuse the president's officer replacement and 'training' orders and side with congress effectively refusing to mobilize and help him.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise And even if it’s Trump, I bet the military would do shit against Americans. Jan 6 was extremists. BLM rioters were greedy fcks.
https://youtu.be/Q4xOhAiqqGk

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe
No I don't think we much care if congress has to hear the grievances of its constituency. That said The Military has a chain of command any member of which can be replaced if for any reason they refuse or simply fail to do what their superiors want.

Commanding them to do whatever said superior want is a t rival task of giving them a flimsy story and getting rid of any one who refuses or even questions it. As the Moto goes "yours is not to question why but only to do or die"
That is of course entirely true which is why any such standing army is soo dangerous. A single national army under the command of one man is the most dangerous of all.

This is why National Guard have the task of actually dealing with civil unrest and emergencies while we go to great lengths to try and keep the national army and its single commander (the president) far away from that kind of domestic power.

Unfortunately power man federal politicians have nonetheless created "insurrection" clauses to let the president to do precisely that without question. Which is why When we have a dictator, that dictator will in fact declare an insurrection took place.

Its worth noting this is why under the written Constitution of 1787 The State legislator or Governor actually has to request that assistance. The President can't just do that for this very reason.
Of course our power hungry imperialist in Washington D. C. threw out that Constitution 100+ years ago, to let them unilaterally declare anything they do like themself to be an "insurrection" and crush it.

This is how American democracy will most likely end now.
1: The "national" army has provided the means,
2: Congress has removed the obstacles to established The method,
3: We have provided the motive ( jail if a bad president agrees step down peacefully).

How long do you think our republic will last given the frequency of such bad presidents?

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise not understanding your list of democracies end…but bad presidents: Obama literally took the dying Bush economy and gave Trump a thriving one that he bulldozed.

[monorprise]

@OddBeMe Obama pulled a page out of FDR's playbook and took a short recession and turned it into a long drawn out affair via suppressing the economy wiht countless new rules.

Obama spent trillions and instead of building infistuture when it was cheap squandered it lining the pockets of democratic donors like the teachers union. This he did with a larger majority than republicans ever had in nearly 100 years.

[OddBeMe]

@monorprise not gonna say people of power didn’t get their cut, he did invest in infrastructure, construction, forcing carmakers to at least 30mpg, and alternative energy.

[monorprise]

If he had invested that enormous amount of money where he promised we would not have had to do so again less than a decade later when prices were peaking, and we wouldn't have lost soo much of the construction industry also required over the next decade.

So no the money didn't go where it was suppose to go, and that which did took many many years.

Regardless Obama's new rules and mandates greatly inhibited economic recovery, instead of balancing back as a unhindered economy always does after a recession, the recession became the "Great recession" as like FDR Obama piled on higher and higher costs to recover anything.

The lower class of course as usual got screwed as he also worked to devalue their unskilled labor with large amounts of newly imported competition willing and able to work for nothing and live in houses 5 men to a room.

[Dargil]

Keep the system that is in place.

[monorprise]

@Dargil The practice in place of a never ending standing 'national' army under the direct command of 1 president has already allowed countless constitutional abuses and exposes us to an ever growing threat of dictatorship.

There is a reason Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12 limits that army to 2 years and instead Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 & 16 are intended to allow congress to carry out all of its duties primary using the State's militia in peace time, as it was before World War 2.

By returning the military to its Natural peace time state, you have 49 other governs to appeal to if any one of them does what right now the president alone could to.

Placing all of our force eggs in 1 basket is the least trustworthy investment we can make.

If you were ever concerned about a President deciding he would rather NOT risk being persecuted out of office as Donald Trump is now, or as Democrats claim Trump did on January 6 in attempting to refuse to step down.
YOU MUST return the U. S. military to its peace time condition.