View Poll Results: Does a state governor have the Constitutional right to monitor Federal troops?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    14 70.00%
  • No

    5 25.00%
  • Maybe

    1 5.00%
  • Don't know

    0 0%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 100

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

  1. #61
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    52,497

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    No it is not the case. But what is a fact is that the Governor of Texas was responding to complaints by citizens that the government was planning to declare martial law. That is a fact. Since that is the case, the intent of the Governor could be construed as being one to demonstrate that the citizens had nothing to worry about because the state militia was there in insure that if the President made such an order, the Governor would obstruct such an order. Otherwise the need to monitor would be of no value. As such, it can be seen as a challenge to the authority of President to make such an order, not through the legitimate constitutional means of the courts, but through the illegitimate use of the state militia.
    Then it's not the case. The militia isn't called up, the State has control. They can use it to monitor Fed activities within their State.

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    No. The constitution does not provide for checks and balances on the power of the federal government by the states. It provides for checks and balances between the various branches of the federal government.
    Well actually, it was the initial purpose of the Senate. But also there are powers reserved to the State that the Federal government cannot have, so obviously that means the Federal government cannot do whatever they want in any State they want, their power is restricted. And in this case it's monitoring, so what's the big deal?
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #62
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,354

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    I see problems arising with this being a non-traditional exercise where some of the troops may be wearing civilian clothing and driving civilian vehicles.

    The military's 'need' to do this sort of training after real life experiences in large ME cities is somewhat suspicious. HELM meaning "Homeland eradication of local militants is downright scary IMO. Who are these 'militants'?

    If I see someone trying to 'blend in' to my environment, I might have to personally address it.
    Do you have any proof that HELM really stands for Homeland eradication of local militants. I have seen this posted before by you as well as on other CT sites and they never show a single Gov document to back that up. What they usually do is link to the very long Joint pub that explains this exercise and none of that is anywhere in the document. In fact the word eradication is not anywhere in the entire document. I think you are falling for some crazy conspiracy theory nonsense.

  3. #63
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    20,347

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

    Quote Originally Posted by braindrain View Post
    Do you have any proof that HELM really stands for Homeland eradication of local militants. I have seen this posted before by you as well as on other CT sites and they never show a single Gov document to back that up. What they usually do is link to the very long Joint pub that explains this exercise and none of that is anywhere in the document. In fact the word eradication is not anywhere in the entire document. I think you are falling for some crazy conspiracy theory nonsense.
    IMO, it's purposeful psych ops.
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Well, what do you mean by "obstruct"????? I thought you asked if we thought that a state governor could send his state guard to monitor troops??
    And again, what is the purpose or intent of the order to monitoring the troops? One could say that the governor means to convey the message to citizens that an order from the President to impose martial law will be obstructed. Such an order in itself can be construed as an unconstitutional use of the state militia to defy the authority of the President to issue martial law, and thus is an act in defiance of the Constitution itself. If the Governor or citizens of Texas feel that the President's authority to issue martial is unconstitutional, they have a legitimate, constitutional means to obstruct such activity through the Federal court system, the use of the state militia to do so, or to send the message that such an order will not be tolerated is beyond the legitimate constitutional power that a state governor has. UNLESS the President has been deemed by the Supreme Court to be acting outside of his legitimate constitutional authority, the state militia cannot be used to obstruct the authority of the President to issue martial law OR to send the message to citizens of a state that such an order from the President will not be tolerated.

    Obstruct means what it means, and that is to stop.

  5. #65
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,354

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    IMO, it's purposeful psych ops.
    So in other words you have no proof that this is the real name of this exercise and are just making things up. Sounds to me like you are the one attempting, poorly, to conduct psych ops.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Then it's not the case. The militia isn't called up, the State has control. They can use it to monitor Fed activities within their State.
    The problem with your position is that you want to construe the use of the words "when called into the actual service of the United States," as meaning that a state militia can be used to defy the authority of the President of the United States who is acting within the authority given to him by the Constitution. Clearly that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Well actually, it was the initial purpose of the Senate. But also there are powers reserved to the State that the Federal government cannot have, so obviously that means the Federal government cannot do whatever they want in any State they want, their power is restricted. And in this case it's monitoring, so what's the big deal?
    Although the Constitution does indeed say that the powers not given to the Federal government are to be exercised by the States, it does say that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and as such constitutional law trumps state law. The big deal here again is that the Governor of Texas has chosen to use the state militia in a display of power that could be construed as conveying the message to citizens of the State of Texas that if the President of the United States were to issue an order that martial law will be imposed in Texas, it will be obstructed. To use the state militia in that way is in defiance of the authority of the President of the United States to issue such an order, and is thus in defiance of the Constitution itself.
    Last edited by MildSteel; 04-30-15 at 09:39 AM.

  7. #67
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    20,347

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

    Quote Originally Posted by braindrain View Post
    So in other words you have no proof that this is the real name of this exercise and are just making things up. Sounds to me like you are the one attempting, poorly, to conduct psych ops.
    I personally have no idea but, we don't know who started the rumors either.

    You do understand how psych ops work don't you?

    Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  8. #68
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    20,347

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    The problem with your position is that you want to construe the use of the words "when called into the actual service of the United States," as meaning that a state militia can be used to defy the authority of the President of the United States who is acting within the authority given to him by the Constitution. Clearly that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.



    Although the Constitution does indeed say that the powers not given to the Federal government are to be exercised by the States, it does say that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and as such constitutional law trumps state law. The big deal here again is that the Governor of Texas has chosen to use the state militia in a display of power that could be construed as conveying the message to citizens of the State of Texas that if the President of the United States were to issue an order than martial law will be imposed in Texas, it will be obstructed. To use the state militia in that way is in defiance of the authority of the President of the United States to issue such an order, and is thus in defiance of the Constitution itself.
    Monitoring doesn't equate to obstruction.

    However, if something seems amiss, I truly hope the Governor takes action.
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Monitoring doesn't equate to obstruction.

    However, if something seems amiss, I truly hope the Governor takes action.
    Ordering the state militia to monitor federal troops in response to concerns from citizens that martial law could be imposed by the President, can be interpreted as sending the message to citizens that such an order from a President, who is acting within his constitutional authority, will be obstructed. The use of the militia in that way can be seen as defiance of the authority of the President and thus the constitution. As such, it can be viewed as obstructive in nature.

  10. #70
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    52,497

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    The problem with your position is that you want to construe the use of the words "when called into the actual service of the United States," as meaning that a state militia can be used to defy the authority of the President of the United States who is acting within the authority given to him by the Constitution. Clearly that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
    They are not defying the "authority of the President of the United States", they are monitoring federal activity in their State. Let's keep the hysterics out of the argument. Additionally, the President doesn't have infinite authority, so even if the State militia would intervene (though this is about MONITORIING, nothing more), it doesn't necessarily mean they'd be doing so in order to defy the authority of the President if the actions of the fed are not actions they can properly take in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Although the Constitution does indeed say that the powers not given to the Federal government are to be exercised by the States, it does say that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and as such constitutional law trumps state law. The big deal here again is that the Governor of Texas has chosen to use the state militia in a display of power that could be construed as conveying the message to citizens of the State of Texas that if the President of the United States were to issue an order that martial law will be imposed in Texas, it will be obstructed. To use the state militia in that way is in defiance of the authority of the President of the United States to issue such an order, and is thus in defiance of the Constitution itself.
    How are they defying anything? They are monitoring and making sure the Fed respects the law of the land. There is nothing in defiance of the Constitution in this act.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •