I’ve never heard it called the “Mexican War”, but then I’m in Canada. Hard to believe, not all wars are American.
The Korean war was actually a police conflict, the United Nations supporting the South against an invasion by the north and eventually the Chinese too. the Americans did most of the heavy lifting but a huge number of troops from other countries helped, including Canada. It was certainly a lot broader than the “Coalition of the Willing”.
Yes, the Vietnam war was actually a civil war also, with the US helping the South.
Yes, but it’s not unusual for the same war to be called by different names in different countries. I believe the Vietnamese refer to what we call the Vietnam War as the American War.
I know Bush-bashing is all the rage these days, but your case founders on the reefs of history. Since 1795, the President has been delegated the power to: “call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.” The Supreme Court has not said that this grant, which still exists in the U.S. Code today, is necessarily limited to the territory of the United States. In the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American Wars, militia troops were not repelling invasions, they were both clearly aggressive wars, and the militias served beyond the boundaries of the United States in both. The National Guard also served in Korea. Using the militias overseas has a long history.
Their use in Iraq and Afghanstan is only a departure from recent history. It is in keeping with the legal and Constitutional foundation. Under the National Defense Act of 1916, the National Guard was brought under the control of the federal government. This and subsequent laws create a system of “dual enlistment” where enlisting in the National Guard (i.e., state militia), is simultaneously enlisting in the federal military manpower reserve. Being called into federal service relieves the enlistee of their service in the state militia. thereby also allowing deployment of Guard soldiers and units outside the boundaries of the Militia Clause. See, for example, Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).
I can’t help but think of the tragedy at Kent State in Ohio, May 4, 1970. That will always haunt my generation. Students were having a peaceful war protest on campus. Someone called in the National Guard. Twenty-eight guardsmen arrived on campus. Some students threw rocks at the guardsmen who began firing their weapons for thirteen seconds. Four students were killed, one was paralyzed and eight were wounded. Some of those who were killed were not participants in the demonstration. They were on their way to classes.
If you need a cite in addition to Perpich, Title 10, Subtitle E of the United States Code also covers federalization of the National Guard. (It’s here if you want to read it.) Guardsmen and reserve members who are under what are called “Title 10 orders” are treated the same as active duty members and receive the same benefits and pay. My husband, for example, has been under Title 10 several times for deployment. When he is, we’re eligible for Tricare health insurance, hazardous-duty and separation pay, and all the goodies that go along with active-duty service. He also went through basic training at Lackland Air Force Base along with people who were entering the regular Air Force.
Also, some Guard units have unique missions that aren’t replicated by an active-duty unit. The 193rd Special Operations Wing in Middletown, Pennsylvania is one such unit. This unit broadcasts news and information via radio and television. It’s also part of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard. If there is a need for the 193rd’s services, they mobilize and go because there is no active duty unit that does the same thing.
You can make all the theoretical arguments you want about constitutional bases for federalization, but the fact of the matter is that they’re professionals who do their job.
Yeah, but this doesn’t count. Canada is so inundated with American Culture that if the expression were in typical use, we probably would have seen it repeatedly. The joke here goes that on Sir John A MacDonald’s birthday, the kid asks his mother “Do we get George Washington’s Birthday off too? The man on TV says he’s the father of our country…”
That was Jim Rhodes, then governor of Ohio, responding to a request by the mayor of Kent. The Guard was not federalized at the time. I do not for a moment condone or defend what the Guard did at Kent State that fateful day, but they were there under lawful state authority after the destruction of the ROTC building by protestors, and other unrest in town and on campus.
I think he meant “just like the Americans”, not “along with John A. McDonald’s birthday”. Jan. 11 precedes Washington’s birthday (Feb 22) and Presidents’ Day (3rd Mon in Feb), so it was mentioned on TV, prompting the question.
Back in the 60’s or early 70’s there was some misplaced Canadian pride crappola; one year we actually got SJAMcD’s birthday off school, IIRC. That was a complaint in a letter to the editor about that time.
Common sense prevailed until recently, and we did not get a statutory holiday immediately after Christmas, Boxing Day, and New Years. Recently, Manitoba has followed Alberta into the ranks of February Holiday provinces… celebrating Louis Riel, a schizophrenic fanatic who started 2 insurrections and got himself hung.
You guys need more interesting role models down there. Compare “I cannot tell a lie” vs. “Pass the bottle and go ask the railroad baron to slip us a few million more…”. You should celebrate Grant’s birthday instead. He knew how to drink.
Of course, there is the “George washington Principle” - it’s easier to tell the truth when you’re the one holding the axe.
The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1984 set up the present status of the NG. It was actually opposed by many General Officers. Essentially, this act moved 75% of the combat forces into the NG (infantry, armor, and field artillery). Additionally, 75% of Combat Support and Combat Service Support was moved into the US Army Reserve. Similar moves occurred in the Air NG, the USNR, and USMCR. Again, this was not popular with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was congress that made the change.
It means that the President CANNOT go to war without the NG and the Reserve, because the regular forces only have 25% of the needed personnel and arms and support available that are needed in the fight and to support the fight.
It is correct, that Goldwater et al, had decided that no one could afford to allow another LBJ to take the country to war without the support of the US population. Since the NG and the Reserve tend to be filled with more mature, married and stable citizens than the regular forces which have a much younger average age, activating them to go to war involves convincing the population of the USA that the war is necessary.
Although the NG shooting at Kent was wrong, the protest was not peaceful. Further, the students had been told to disperse but refused. Instead of bullets, bayonets and truncheons would have been the tools of choice, but the NG was not trained in riot control. I had numerous friends who were students at Kent on that date. They all followed the directions of the authorities, went home, and were safe. Again, the use of firearms was wrong, but refusing to disperse when lawful orders are given, can result in terrible outcomes. I frequently read that at least one of the students who was shot, was on his way to class. My friends who were students there that date tell me all classes were canceled. I don’t know for sure, as I had been drafted and was already on active duty as a Private soldier in the Army of the U.S.
Again, the Goldwater-Nichols Act made the NG and the Reserve essential for any go to war operations that the USA runs. Even the bulk of Special Forces or the Green Berets are largely in the NG. The arguement about using the NG is specious. I doubt you would find even few of the most liberal folks in congress saying that using the NG in Iraq, etc., is unconstitutional. Maybe it should be, but I don’t think anyone really believes that it is unconstitutional. If the do, they certainly are not saying much about it. I am in the NG and the soldiers themselves sure are not thinking it is unconstitutional. I think it would require a repeal of the G-N Act to stop the use overseas of the NG. But then we would eventually revert to the status we had in the 1960s under LBJ. Believe me, it was MUCH worse than it is today. This is a better way.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “barring”. Like many things, there’s restrictions that make it hard to use the active-duty military to enforce domestic law, but it isn’t completely prohibited. The Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act. They basically say the President has to get Congress’s permission to use the Army, Navy, Air Force, or National Guard unit called into federal service to enforce domestic law.
It gets confusing in some situations because the state militias (i.e., the National Guard) can be used to enforce law inside their state when under the authority of that state’s governor. After all, that’s the very function the original Plymouth Colony and Virginia militias were formed to perform. So the same troops can sometimes be used to enforce domestic law without Congressional approval, but sometimes they can’t.
