• 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

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
An interesting question of constitutional law. Does the governor of Texas have the right to order a volunteer state militia to monitor Federal troops to ensure there is no hostile intent?

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday asked the State Guard to monitor a U.S. military training exercise dubbed "Jade Helm 15" amid Internet-fueled suspicions that the war simulation is really a hostile military takeover.

The request comes a day after more than 200 people packed a meeting in rural Bastrop County and questioned a U.S. Army commander about whether the government was planning to confiscate guns or implement martial law. Bastrop County Judge Paul Pape said "conspiracy theorists" and "fear mongers" had been in a frenzy.

Pape thanked Abbott for the letter to the Texas State Guard, which he believed helped emphasize the benefit of the military training rather than further fuel theorists.

"It's a sad when people's greatest fear is their own government," Pape said. "Think about the ramification of that. If Americans go to sleep at night worrying whether their own government is going to sell them out before morning, it'd be hard to sleep."

Suspicions about Jade Helm intensified on some conservative websites and social media after a map labeled Texas, Utah and parts of California as "hostile" for the purposes of the three-month training exercise that begins in July. Such war simulations aren't unusual, though the Army has acknowledged that the size and scope of Jade Helm makes it unique.

Texas and six other states are hosting the exercises on public and private lands. The Army says the terrain and topography in the areas selected are ideal to replicate foreign combat zones.

No other governor had so publicly addressed the training exercise.

"It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed," Abbott wrote. "By monitoring the Operation on a continual basis, the State Guard will facilitate communications between my office and the commanders of the Operation to ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect Texans."
....

Texas Governor Tells State Guard to Monitor Army Training - ABC News
 
Gov. Abbott is addressing the concerns of his fellow Texans. Of course he's doing the right thing here.
 
Gov. Abbott is addressing the concerns of his fellow Texans. Of course he's doing the right thing here.

Let's suppose that Federal government was planning to implement martial law in Texas. Would he be within his constitutional rights to have the militia report to him about Federal troop activity so that he could devise plans to obstruct such an endeavor?
 
Let's suppose that Federal government was planning to implement martial law in Texas. Would he be within his constitutional rights to have the militia report to him about Federal troop activity so that he could devise plans to obstruct such an endeavor?

Hell YES! Why do you think he made the order?

Remember this little bit of history? We Texans certainly do.

The Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil.

The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.
In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.
In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”


snip

Read more at: How the Nazis Used Gun Control | National Review Online
 
Does it matter? No. Federal authority usurps State anyways.
 
Let's suppose that Federal government was planning to implement martial law in Texas. Would he be within his constitutional rights to have the militia report to him about Federal troop activity so that he could devise plans to obstruct such an endeavor?
We do not have to suppose anything, the federal Government did declare martial law during reconstruction.
One of the first things they did, was put in their own Governor.
In response the Governors office was stripped of most of it's real authority.
 
The Eyes of Texas are Upon You. :)
 
Sure, why not. Checks and balances.
 
Hell YES! Why do you think he made the order?

Remember this little bit of history? We Texans certainly do.

The Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil.

The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.
In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.
In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”


snip

Read more at: How the Nazis Used Gun Control | National Review Online

But, the Constitution gives the President of the United States command of the militia of the states

The President shall be 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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
 
We do not have to suppose anything, the federal Government did declare martial law during reconstruction.
One of the first things they did, was put in their own Governor.
In response the Governors office was stripped of most of it's real authority.

So what is your point?
 
An interesting question of constitutional law. Does the governor of Texas have the right to order a volunteer state militia to monitor Federal troops to ensure there is no hostile intent?



Texas Governor Tells State Guard to Monitor Army Training - ABC News

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?).
 
What about Article 2, section 2, clause 1. The President is supposed to be the Commander in Chief of the state militias.

Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The last part of the statement is important.
The President shall be 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;
In addition the Texas Governor is the commander and chief of the Texas Military,
(Which I think is now only the Texas Rangers).
 
The last part of the statement is important.
when called into the actual Service of the United States;
In addition the Texas Governor is the commander and chief of the Texas Military,
(Which I think is now only the Texas Rangers).
It is odd that someone had to point that out.
 
So what is your point?
Your question back on post #4 was,
Let's suppose that Federal government was planning to implement martial law in Texas. Would he be within his constitutional rights to have the militia report to him about Federal troop activity so that he could devise plans to obstruct such an endeavor?
The last time they declared martial law in Texas, they replaced the Governor first.
It appears the federal government was a bit concerned about the authority of the Governor!
 
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?).

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.
 
Last edited:
If called upon however, they are under the authority of yours truly, Barack Obama.

Not they are not. And what does 'several' states refer to?

Obama is not thought of in a good light here in TX. He calls fro Martial law and he's in for a fight.
 
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.

Isn't that just what Abbott is doing?
 
Not they are not. And what does 'several' states refer to?

Obama is not thought of in a good light here in TX. He calls fro Martial law and he's in for a fight.

My bad read edit, it was meant practically not legally. Sorry for misunderstanding.
 
This Operation Jade Helm 15 map shows the two reddest states as being HOSTILE. [politically non-aligned] HMMM??

imrs.php
 
Back
Top Bottom