I grok-ed Tampon Timmy’s threat about calling his state’s National Guard to defend against US Federal Forces because it sounded so ignorant. Grok said:
“No, a state governor cannot legally call out the state’s National Guard to oppose or stand against the federal government. Such an action would violate federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
Dual Status of the National Guard: The National Guard operates in a hybrid state-federal role: By default, governors serve as commanders-in-chief of their state’s National Guard when it is in state active duty or Title 32 status (funded federally but under state control for missions like disaster response).
The President holds authority to federalize the Guard under Title 10 U.S. Code, placing it under federal command without the governor’s consent in certain cases, such as to enforce federal laws, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion (e.g., via the Insurrection Act or 10 U.S.C. § 12406).
Federal Supremacy: The Supremacy Clause (Article VI of the Constitution) establishes that valid federal law and authority take precedence over state actions. A governor using the Guard to resist federal authority (e.g., blocking federal law enforcement or defying a federal court order) would constitute interference with federal functions, which is prohibited. States and their officials cannot lawfully obstruct federal officers executing federal law.
President’s Override Power: If a governor attempted to deploy the Guard against federal forces or orders, the President could federalize the unit, transferring command to federal authorities. At that point, Guard members would follow federal orders, and refusal could lead to military discipline.
Legal Restrictions and Historical Context: The Posse Comitatus Act limits federal military use in domestic law enforcement but does not apply to state-controlled Guard—however, it becomes relevant once federalized.
No historical examples exist of a state National Guard successfully resisting federal authority in a direct confrontation. Past integrations (e.g., Little Rock in 1957) involved presidents federalizing Guard units when governors used them to defy federal desegregation orders, effectively reversing the governor’s control.
Some states maintain separate State Defense Forces (not the National Guard), but federal law (32 U.S.C. § 109) prohibits these from being used in ways that interfere with federal authority, and they cannot be federalized.
In short, while a governor can initially deploy the Guard for state purposes, any attempt to pit it against legitimate federal authority would be short-lived and illegal due to the President’s federalization powers and constitutional federal supremacy. This structure prevents states from using military force to nullify federal actions.
It is really hard to be dumber than Kamala.
Thanks for looking that up.
And your postscript is funny.