Yes, he did, and so did Rawl
No he didn’t and neither did Rawl, at least neither did so in the citations you have provided. We are at loggerheads here, taking different meaning from the same words.
Their submission to its operation is voluntary
So they voluntarily ceded some degree of jurisdiction which still negates your assertion that “…the federal government has NO jurisdiction inside one of the respective States....”.
I would like to ask again for your legal source for the assertion that the federal government can waltz into the interior of a State at will.
I didn’t assert “that the federal government can waltz into the interior of a State at will.” You asked “Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?” when my assertion was “but it looks like a request from the State is only needed in the case of domestic violence and that no such request is needed in the cases of invasion or insurrection” and I responded to that. I did not write “at will” I wrote “in the cases of invasion or insurrection” and I specifically indicated they couldn’t come in merely “at will” in the case of domestic violence.
Article 1 Section 10 makes no mention of insurrection, rebellion, domestic violence or a republican form of government, so what was your point?
You wrote “NO jurisdiction” which I took to be “no jurisdiction at all of any kind” and an expansion beyond insurrection, rebellion, domestic violence and a republican form of government. My point was that Article 1 Section 10 states areas in which consent of Congress is required and therefore the federal government does have some jurisdiction. I take it you agree there are circumstances when the federal government does have some jurisdiction within the respective states even if assistance was not requested. I take it you believe that until a State requests assistance, the federal government has no jurisdiction in regard to insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence inside one of the respective States.
Yes, my statement was made within the context of the conversation and was not meant to include any authority Constitutionally delegated by the States.
-----
I take it you believe that until a State requests assistance, the federal government has no jurisdiction in regard to insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence inside one of the respective States.
Exactly. The mention in Article 6, Clause 2 of the State Constitutions would seem to confirm it.
Since the military is subordinate to the civil authority, the military authority cannot act of it's own volition, thus preventing any action by it without the express permission of the State.