• 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
Oh goody, another poll where anyone who responds is wrong. Sad when the word "clear" doesn't mean what it actually means. Good try by those who are actually quoting the Constitution: "...when called into the actual Service of the United States."
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that's not the case here, yes?

MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are many checks and balances, including checks on the federal government by State. The federal government doesn't have full authority and that's specified in the 9th and 10th amendment. In fact, the 10th reserves powers to the State and People.
 
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...

Read the damn laws. The state guards cannot be wholly commissioned by the United States.

And no, it's not unconstitutional.
 
DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...

My bad.
 
MildSteel said:
The constitution clearly, and explicitly states that the state militias are under the supreme command of the President.



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.
Click to expand...
You know full well what the constitution says (you quoted it earlier), and claiming the POTUS has "supreme command" over state militia is disingenuous, at best. Thanks for proving my point concerning libs and the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
But that's not the case here, yes?
Click to expand...

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.

Ikari said:
There are many checks and balances, including checks on the federal government by State. The federal government doesn't have full authority and that's specified in the 9th and 10th amendment. In fact, the 10th reserves powers to the State and People.
Click to expand...

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.
 
countryboy said:
You know full well what the constitution says (you quoted it earlier), and claiming the POTUS has "supreme command" over state militia is disingenuous, at best. Thanks for proving my point concerning libs and the constitution.
Click to expand...

No it is not disingenuous. It is a fact that the Constitution explicitly states that.
 
Montecresto said:
Constitutional right? Not sure, but they should have.
Click to expand...

Constitutional right to monitor Federal troop activity for what purpose? Unless the President is acting outside of the Constitution, the Governor of a State cannot use the militia to obstruct Federal troop activity or given the impression to citizens that he could do such. I don't think its a good idea for them to have that right because it is good that the state mechanism for violent coercion be subordinate to the Federal mechanism. Its a lot easier to develop a statewide consensus for the misuse of such power, than it is to do so at a national level.
 
MildSteel said:
Constitutional right to monitor Federal troop activity for what purpose? Unless the President is acting outside of the Constitution, the Governor of a State cannot use the militia to obstruct Federal troop activity or given the impression to citizens that he could do such. I don't think its a good idea for them to have that right because it is good that the state mechanism for violent coercion be subordinate to the Federal mechanism. Its a lot easier to develop a statewide consensus for the misuse of such power, than it is to do so at a national level.
Click to expand...

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??
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
WCH said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
braindrain said:
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.
Click to expand...

IMO, it's purposeful psych ops.
 
Montecresto said:
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??
Click to expand...

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.
 
WCH said:
IMO, it's purposeful psych ops.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Ikari said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
braindrain said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...
Monitoring doesn't equate to obstruction.

However, if something seems amiss, I truly hope the Governor takes action.
 
WCH said:
Monitoring doesn't equate to obstruction.

However, if something seems amiss, I truly hope the Governor takes action.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
WCH said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how that acronym is all over CT websites but they have zero proof for it. I think it is a very safe bet who started the rumor/outright lie.
Seeing as the military is not saying that what you claim is the name of the exercise is the real name then there would not be much value to that propaganda. If the military was really trying to scare the locals by calling it that then wouldn't they be using that name and not just CT nutjobs.
 
Ikari said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Again, the Governor of Texas ordered the state militia to monitor federal troops in response to concerns from some citizens of Texas that martial law was going to be imposed. By issuing such an order, the Governor of Texas is sending the message to those citizens that there is no need to fear because such an order from the President of the United States will be obstructed. That is an illegitimate use of the state militia to send a message in that way. If the Governor, or the citizens of Texas have such concerns, they have the legitimate constitutional means through the federal court system to express those concerns. The use of an arm of the state government, which is meant to employ violent coercion if necessary, is not the appropriate means.
 
MildSteel said:
Again, the Governor of Texas ordered the state militia to monitor federal troops in response to concerns from some citizens of Texas that martial law was going to be imposed. By issuing such an order, the Governor of Texas is sending the message to those citizens that there is no need to fear because such an order from the President of the United States will be obstructed. That is an illegitimate use of the state militia to send a message in that way. If the Governor, or the citizens of Texas have such concerns, they have the legitimate constitutional means through the federal court system to express those concerns. The use of an arm of the state government, which is meant to employ violent coercion if necessary, is not the appropriate means.
Click to expand...

There's no obstruction. They are not stopping the Fed from doing anything, nor did they agree to deploy the State Militia against the Fed should it "declare martial law".

This is vaporware, nothing more. It's not illegitimate use, the Militia belongs to the state and may be ordered by the Governor. They are not hindering or interfering with anything the federal government is doing, they are merely monitoring. Just because you feel that it's some egregious affront to Obama doesn't mean it actually is.
 
Ikari said:
There's no obstruction. They are not stopping the Fed from doing anything, nor did they agree to deploy the State Militia against the Fed should it "declare martial law".

This is vaporware, nothing more. It's not illegitimate use, the Militia belongs to the state and may be ordered by the Governor. They are not hindering or interfering with anything the federal government is doing, they are merely monitoring. Just because you feel that it's some egregious affront to Obama doesn't mean it actually is.
Click to expand...

You have invented this egregious affront to Obama from your imagination. It doesn't matter who is President, as long as the President is acting within his constitutional authority, as far as the constitution is concerned, he has the right to declare martial law. If the Governor of Texas or citizens of Texas have a problem with that, the federal court system is the constitutional way to do it. A display of force with a state militia is not the way to go about it.
 
MildSteel said:
You have invented this egregious affront to Obama from your imagination. It doesn't matter who is President, as long as the President is acting within his constitutional authority, as far as the constitution is concerned, he has the right to declare martial law. If the Governor of Texas or citizens of Texas have a problem with that, the federal court system is the constitutional way to do it. A display of force with a state militia is not the way to go about it.
Click to expand...

OMG...really? What egregious affront to Obama have I generated? You keep complaining about how this is such a blow against the President, who is? Obama. So that's you. Texas has done nothing here, they are merely monitoring Fed activity in their State. That doesn't obstruct anything, they are not preventing anything from happening. You've invented this grad conspiracy over legitimately exercised powers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom