"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and SHALL protect each of them against Invasion; and on APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
The 'and' indicates that such is another element of a list; therefore the guarantee of protection [in case of invasion] is separate from that of the "application of the legislature*".
Or would you say that this would prevent Amendments 9 & 10 from allowing, say, New Mexico's constitution to say the following?
Art V, Sec. 4. [Governor’s executive power; commander of militia.]
The supreme executive power of the state shall be vested in the governor, who shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He shall be commander in chief of the military forces of the state, except when they are called into the service of the United States. He shall have power to call out the militia to preserve the public peace, execute the laws, suppress insurrection and repel invasion.
* or executive [when...]
Let’s say you’re right, and the “and” separates rather than joins the two clauses.
1) The language still requires the United States to protect the States from invasion. Period. No request from the individual State is required for the general government to do so. They simply must.
2) The language still does not preclude the Legislatures from making the request for protection, with or without the Governor. If the first clause stands alone, it doesn’t then specify who makes the request on behalf of the individual State.
3) This invasion has led to a high degree of domestic violence. Our prisons and streets are full of illegals who have harmed Americans. By the way, if what illegals are doing in this regard is not regarded as “domestic violence,” that only leaves one other option: it is the hostile act of a foreign nation, and we should by all rights recognize that a state of war exists, and reply with our own Declaration of War, and then commence hostilities.
The reason I think it is more likely that a Legislature would make the application is because the Governors are a bunch of moral cowards. Sticking their necks out on the behalf of the people and the Constitution just isn’t their style. The Legislatures have lots of those sorts as well, but the responsibility would be spread out, and therefore more likely to be undertaken.
That’s simply my opinion, based on experience and observation.
Great point about the New Mexico constitution, by the way. Well done.
We’re dealing with a matter that is fundamental and indispensible. When the oath is sworn, as Article Six requires of all officers of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, the core of that oath involves the securing of the lives, the liberty, the property of every individual, and the sovereignty, security, borders, and independence of the whole people. It’s a shared duty. It’s why we have a Union, and why we have a Constitution. It is the raison d’etre of this free republic, and the reason for the existence of each and every office within it.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
— The Declaration of Independence
The Constitution gives special duties in this regard to the President of the United States, and as you rightfully pointed out, the state constitutions give special responsibilities to the Governors.
But, fundamentally, the right and duty of self-protection and self-preservation is, as Samuel Adams and the Committees of Correspondence pointed out, the first law of nature.