• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does a state governor have the Constitutional right to monitor Federal troops?

Does a state governor have the Constitutional right to monitor Federal troops?

  • Total voters
    20
ttwtt78640 said:
Isn't that just what Abbott is doing?
Click to expand...

Yep. The fact the Governor is addressing this is quite telling.

This was announced months ago and quickly became a 'nut-job conspiracy theory'. Abbott is validating it as being a concern.
 
Which are the 'several' states referred to in the 2nd clause of article two. Guessing not all.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How could asking volunteers to monitor (observe?) anything be unconstitutional? The governor is not ordering any action or even spending any additional funds - this is simply to appease concerned citizens who have been upset by the content of some fairly fringe websites. The training exercise is taking place on US terrain similar to foreign lands (Iran?).
Click to expand...

I suppose that one could construe the governor's intent in making such an order to the militia to be a challenge to the power of the President of the United States. Although that would be a stretch in this instance, that is an argument that could be made.
 
Goshin said:
Haven't you heard? Nobody pays attention to that Constitution thingy anymore. :D
Click to expand...

Yep. That and they construe the words to mean whatever suits their interests at the time. At the end of the day it boils down to who has power and who doesn't.
 
longview said:
The last part of the statement is important.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. As things stand now in terms of the Constitution, IF the President deemed there was an emergency and martial law needed to be implemented in Texas, only the Supreme Court could say that the President was in violation of the Constitution by doing so.

longview said:
In addition the Texas Governor is the commander and chief of the Texas Military,
(Which I think is now only the Texas Rangers).
Click to expand...

The Texas Rangers were not charged with making the observations in this instance. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Texas Rangers are not Texas defense force in the sense a defense force that is used to protect the sovereignty of the State.
 
Luftwaffe said:
He is only CiC if he calls them into service for the United States. Has he done so? No. Therefor the CiC of the state militia is currently the governor.
Click to expand...

If we take your logic to its conclusion, that would mean that unless the President EXPLICITLY called them into the service of the United States, they would be within their Constitutional limits if they fired upon Federal troops if the governor felt the President was unnecessarily enforcing martial law. I don't think that is the case. It would appear to me that there is an implicit subordination of the militia to the command of the President, when Federal troops are acting under Presidential authority, which they are in this case.
 
MildSteel said:
Yes it is. As things stand now in terms of the Constitution, IF the President deemed there was an emergency and martial law needed to be implemented in Texas, only the Supreme Court could say that the President was in violation of the Constitution by doing so.
Click to expand...
As evidenced by history, one of the first things to go is the Governor.
With the president's own guy in there, it does not matter what his authority is.



The Texas Rangers were not charged with making the observations in this instance. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Texas Rangers are not Texas defense force in the sense a defense force that is used to protect the sovereignty of the State.
Click to expand...
That is correct the Rangers were not the group asked to look at this.
The Texas rangers are the last bit of standing army for the state of Texas,
and have been used to protect the sovereignty of both the republic and the state.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
The Texas rangers are the last bit of standing army for the state of Texas,
and have been used to protect the sovereignty of both the republic and the state.
Click to expand...

Let me put it like this then. Texas does not have any national sovereignty anymore. It is has state sovereignty that is subordinate to the sovereignty of the United States of America.
 
MildSteel said:
Let me put it like this then. Texas does not have any national sovereignty anymore. It is has state sovereignty that is subordinate to the sovereignty of the United States of America.
Click to expand...
I have not read the treaty, so do not know if that statement is 100% accurate.
P.S. I don't think you have read the treaty ether.
 
longview said:
I have not read the treaty, so do not know if that statement is 100% accurate.
P.S. I don't think you have read the treaty ether.
Click to expand...

No I have not and don't need to read it. What is a fact is that Texas is a State of the United States of America. As such it has state sovereignty that is subordinate to the sovereignty of the United States, at least as far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned.
 
Ikari said:
I has the ability to do so, yes. Government's don't have rights.
Click to expand...

As far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned, the governor of a state does not have the authority to challenge the power the the President of the United States, UNLESS the Supreme Court has said that the President is acting in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
 
MildSteel said:
If we take your logic to its conclusion, that would mean that unless the President EXPLICITLY called them into the service of the United States, they would be within their Constitutional limits if they fired upon Federal troops if the governor felt the President was unnecessarily enforcing martial law. I don't think that is the case. It would appear to me that there is an implicit subordination of the militia to the command of the President, when Federal troops are acting under Presidential authority, which they are in this case.
Click to expand...

Nope. Look at the civil rights era when the state NG were mobilized against African Americans and the president had to respond with sending in the 101st airborne and the federalization of the Arkansas NG.

Yes, unless the state guard are federalize or the state militia members put in a draft, the state can resist action by the federal government using state guards from either the NG or a state militia.
 
MildSteel said:
As far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned, the governor of a state does not have the authority to challenge the power the the President of the United States, UNLESS the Supreme Court has said that the President is acting in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that the State cannot challenge the Federal Government? Beyond just the men (governor and president) States can bring the Federal government to court to challenge all sorts of things. I think you want to claim that they cannot monitor federal presence and activity, and I think that is false as well. Obviously they can watch the feds and make sure they abide by the rules and conduct of Republic and State.
 
MildSteel said:
But, the Constitution gives the President of the United States command of the militia of the states
Click to expand...

You can't ignore the bits you don't like. ;)

"....when called into actual service of the United States. "
 
Luftwaffe said:
Nope. Look at the civil rights era when the state NG were mobilized against African Americans and the president had to respond with sending in the 101st airborne and the federalization of the Arkansas NG.

Yes, unless the state guard are federalize or the state militia members put in a draft, the state can resist action by the federal government using state guards from either the NG or a state militia.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you in the strongest terms because that would violate the Constitutional principle of the state militias being under the supreme command of the President of the United States. They cannot be said to be under the command of the President IF they are acting in violation of his orders.
 
MildSteel said:
I disagree with you in the strongest terms because that would violate the Constitutional principle of the state militias being under the supreme command of the President of the United States. They cannot be said to be under the command of the President IF they are acting in violation of his orders.
Click to expand...

Per US code, state militias cannot be put under control of the United States. You're thinking of the state National Guards.

All of the individuals within said militias however, can be drafted and in effect, be put under federal control.
 
Ikari said:
Where does it say that the State cannot challenge the Federal Government?
Click to expand...

When it says that the militias are under the supreme command of the President of the United States.

Ikari said:
Beyond just the men (governor and president) States can bring the Federal government to court to challenge all sorts of things.
Click to expand...

A legal challenge in court is certainly within bounds of the Constitution of the United States. A challenge through the threat of violence is not, UNLESS the Supreme Court has stated that the President is acting outside of his constitutional authority.

Ikari said:
I think you want to claim that they cannot monitor federal presence and activity, and I think that is false as well. Obviously they can watch the feds and make sure they abide by the rules and conduct of Republic and State.
Click to expand...

They MIGHT be able to do that as long as the President does not deem that such observation is an obstruction the Federal troop activity. Having said that, the case could be made that the governor, by ordering such observation by the state militia in response to fears of citizens that martial law might be imposed, is challenging Presidential power to invoke such martial law, and as such is in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Per US code, state militias cannot be put under control of the United States. You're thinking of the state National Guards.

All of the individuals within said militias however, can be drafted and in effect, be put under federal control.
Click to expand...

The Constitution clearly says that the state militias are under the supreme command of the President of the United States.
 
Luftwaffe said:
He is only CiC if he calls them into service for the United States. Has he done so? No. Therefor the CiC of the state militia is currently the governor.
Click to expand...

You are confusing the Texas National Guard with the Texas State Guard. The Texas State Guard is not part of the DOD and cannot be federalized, it belongs only to the state and the governor is the CIC.
 
MildSteel said:
No I have not and don't need to read it. What is a fact is that Texas is a State of the United States of America. As such it has state sovereignty that is subordinate to the sovereignty of the United States, at least as far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned.
Click to expand...

The states are only subordinate to the feds where specifically enumerated powers are concerned. In all other matters the states are sovereign. At least, that's the way it was intended to work. Libs are only concerned about the constitution when they think they can use it as a tool to force others to do as they will. :roll:
 
countryboy said:
The states are only subordinate to the feds where specifically enumerated powers are concerned. In all other matters the states are sovereign. At least, that's the way it was intended to work.
Click to expand...

The constitution clearly, and explicitly states that the state militias are under the supreme command of the President.

countryboy said:
Libs are only concerned about the constitution when they think they can use it as a tool to force others to do as they will. :roll:
Click to expand...

This isn't a Liberal vs Conservative issue as far as I am concerned. Its an issue of what the Constitution means and constitutional law.
 
MildSteel said:
When it says that the militias are under the supreme command of the President of the United States.
Click to expand...

"Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

When called into actual service of the United States. Yes, the President can assume control of State militia by calling them into service, but he does not get carte blanch control of State militias. Ultimately a militia is controlled by the State it serves and then President when called up.

MildSteel said:
A legal challenge in court is certainly within bounds of the Constitution of the United States. A challenge through the threat of violence is not, UNLESS the Supreme Court has stated that the President is acting outside of his constitutional authority.
Click to expand...

They're just making sure the Feds stay within proper bounds.

MildSteel said:
They MIGHT be able to do that as long as the President does not deem that such observation is an obstruction the Federal troop activity. Having said that, the case could be made that the governor, by ordering such observation by the state militia in response to fears of citizens that martial law might be imposed, is challenging Presidential power to invoke such martial law, and as such is in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

We'll see what they lawyers say on that one. But as the State has control of its own militia, it seems to me that the governor has more than enough power to order them to monitor federal agents operating within his State.
 
MildSteel said:
The Constitution clearly says that the state militias are under the supreme command of the President of the United States.
Click to expand...
No it does not.
Why you continually refuse to acknowledge reality is beyond me.

He is only CIC of them;
when called into the actual Service of the United States;​
 
Ikari said:
"Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

When called into actual service of the United States. Yes, the President can assume control of State militia by calling them into service, but he does not get carte blanch control of State militias. Ultimately a militia is controlled by the State it serves and then President when called up.
Click to expand...

If the President were to declare martial law, AND the Supreme Court DID NOT say that the President was acting outside of his constitutional authority, then the militias would be in violation of the supreme command of the President, if they acted to obstruct such an imposition of martial law. As such they would be in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Ikari said:
They're just making sure the Feds stay within proper bounds.
Click to expand...

As far as the Constitution is concerned the checks and balances on Presidential power lies within the Federal court system, not through the governor of a state by ordering the activity of state militia activity, UNLESS the Supreme Court has said the President is acting outside of his constitutional authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom