He may have a few problems that some coordination can solve.
To start with, common law recognizes county Sheriffs as the de facto leader of the actual posse comitatus or militia (not the Posse Comitatus Act).
“Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff or other law officer to conscript any able-bodied adult person to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon. It survives in the United States, where a Sheriff might in effect declare some or all “adult persons of good character” to be deputized and thus authorized to bear arms in circumstances where the federal government might attempt to seize the arms of citizens.”
This, in effect, establishes them as law enforcement officers of the state, so the federals would have to order the disarmament of the states police at all levels to disarm these few.
By judicial precedent, the congress overrides state legislatures, and federal courts override state courts; but the Supreme Court has *never* found that the president is superior to state governors. Therefore if a governor refuses to obey, the only presidential recourse is to send in the US Army to enforce his authority.
And this is greater than the standoff of the 101st Airborne Division against the Arkansas National Guard to force integration in their high school. In effect, it would be the president invading a state to take over its government.
The last time this happened was the Civil War, when the Union Army was loyal to the president. I’m not so sure this can today be taken as a given.
Outstanding post. Should be read by all. Kudos.
Bookmark
i know the president can nationalize the natioonal guard in emergencies. could the president nationalize the state national guard in order to subvert the will and power of the governor to defend against federal troops?
Is this [the underlined] correct though? Consider, for example, the case where the representatives/senators enact something contrary to their respective state's Constitution. If they are commissioned under the State, then they fall under the authority of the State Constitution and to act contrary is lawlessness (and contrary the 10th amendment).
As a specific example, let us consider H.R.5122 of 2006 -- that it has apparently since been repealed is no concern -- which allowed the President to "take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization." Now many, if not most, States have language similar to the New Mexico state constitution which says: "The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state. The organized militia shall be called the 'national guard of New Mexico,' of which the governor shall be the commander in chief."
But HR 5122 effectively alters the New Mexico constitution, removing the governor as its commander in chief. If valid, then the Constitution of a State means nothing, as the [federal] ruling class could simply enact [federal] law negating any particular state's constitution in any particular area.
Where I live, in northeastern calif., we have five county Sheriffs that have signed and pubicly announced, that they will abjure from any further restictions on RTKB, by the state or federals.