What happens if a state National Guard refuses to be federalized?

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

From an earlier thread:

@Stranger_On_A_Train

The President does, in fact, have the authority to call up the National Guard and other state militia per 10 U.S. Code § 252 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority and 10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law. The governor of the pertinent state ostensibly still has control over these forces; however per 10 U.S. Code § 254 - Proclamation to disperse:

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

Once federalized (“Title 10 duty”), a National Guard unit is effectively a part of the US Army (treated as a Active Duty unit in terms of pay and utility) and the home state governor has no say in deployment. The actually logistics of call up can be complicated:

Activating the National Guard and Reserves: Who Calls, Why, and What It Means

It should be noted that the Militia Act of 1903 is of questionable provenance under the view of Constitutional ‘originalism’, and the Founders never intended for the federal government to have a standing army of any kind (and a limited navy sufficient to patrol coastal waters). In fact, the government is really supposed to dissolve and reconstitute the US Army every two years but has basically retained a standing army since the Mexican-American War (ending in 1848), and a sizable army for pacification or adventurism since the US Civil War. However, the US Supreme Court has regularly rendered judgements in favor of federalization, a permanent military establishment, and even the military draft and Selective Service registration in defiance of original intent and the 13th Amendment.

Stranger