BREAKING REPORT: ⚠️ Texas National Guard DEFIES SUPREME COURT RULING,

twitter ^ | 01/23/24 | Chuck Callesto

[blueyon]

BREAKING REPORT: ⚠️ Texas National Guard DEFIES SUPREME COURT RULING, installs more razor wire and barriers at Shelby Park in Eagle Pass Texas..

DEVELOPING..(video at link)

[dforest]

Joe Biden flat out ignored SCOTUS ruling regarding student loans. So Texas can do what they want too.

[EinNYC]

Can mines be placed along the crossing route of that river?

[SauronOfMordor]

Except that the National Guard are not really a state militia as the Constitution envisioned. They are a reserve component of the US Army, under the Militia Act of 1903

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25119439?seq=1

Although Texas DOES maintain a true state militia independent of the National Guard

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard

[frnewsjunkie]

I know it is.
However the TX National Guard is defying the SC and this constitution backs them up

[Jeff Chandler]

I like it!

[Reily]

I think the National Guard Act of 1905 (something like that! I think there were 3 federal acts in the preWWI time period!) that effectively did away with state militia system. Split them into the National Guard which is quasi-federal & state guards (Which most states didn’t bother to set up!) I believe the NG can “federalized” by the stroke of the president’s pen. (The state does pay salaries of senior NG officers and NCOs.) State guards were left to the states. The trade-off was the NGs got federal paid for training & equipment. Also as we’ve seen recently the NGs got to participate in the “World” (I know WV NG’ers who got deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Baltic, etc) all paid for by FedGov. They got good experience and training from this but this certainly has loosened the idea they are the states forces. All this relieves the state having to a any real defense bills except for a few senior NG salaries. I never understood how any of this was Constitutional. I guess it took a more creative reading of the Constitution then I was capable doing. Must be that law school training! I remember this being Constitutionally challenged in the 1980s when Bush I deployed a Mass NG unit to central America. I am pretty sure the governor lost the case. Another reason it was done was when it was decided that NG units were to be integrated into regular Army units should the balloon go up in Europe. This allowed savings in regular Army costs even though it seemed to be wishful thinking to me. Anyway the balloon didn’t go up! Now what about the remaining state guard units. They’re basically a shadow of a shadow of the old state militia system. Only to be called up in the state if the NG is already called up and gone. The only one I have any knowledge of is the Virginia State Guard. When I lived in NoVa I’d see them recruiting at gun shows. I chatted with the recruiters. If I remember this right they are completely unarmed and they have “training” meetings. Since I don’t remember the details I doubt it amounted to much. I don’t know about the other states that have state guards. Some states with coast lines have a state naval guard.

IMO the actual bottom line is as I see it is: The states don’t want to have a real defense budget - a militia system eventhough its Constitutionally mandated. They’re just as happy letting the federal government pay those bills and pretend to be doing their Constitutional duty. Most don’t even bother to do that!

Note this is all from memory and some of the details might be misremembered.

[P.O.E.]

I’m afraid you are correct.

[Paisan]

Yeeee HA !

[Buttons12]

Where are the opinions of the dissenters? I can’t seem to find anything online.

[lastchance]

With all the concern about disinformation the Guard acted rationally since they could not be sure of the veracity of the news about the ruling.

[smokingfrog]

Exactly what law would they be breaking?

[Political Junkie Too]

I wasn't familiar with that act, but the funding of militias should be the responsibility of Congress if the part about "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." means what it says.

If the state militias are to be the units that Congress can call up, then Congress has to "provide for" the "arming" of those militias.

I would think that any law passed by Congress has its roots in these clauses, so any state military unit (funded by the feds or not) belong to the states and are officered by the states.

That is, if the Constitution means what it says it means.

-PJ -PJ

[OKSooner]

Dare I say it, GO TEXAS!

COYOTE SEASON!!

[DiogenesLamp]

Things are not going well for Fani. It’s all of her own doing. She has gotten caught in some very unethical and corrupt behavior, allegedly, something she probably didn’t expect to happen.

Good. F*** em!

Way past time states started telling the black robed dictators to go f*** themselves.

[Joe Marine 76]

Good! Bring it on!

[CatOwner]

They will view this as another Jan 6 like uprising like event and use this as another talking point against so-called extremists in Texas and with Trump. Biden wants this. Actually - Biden needs this.

Maybe, but Americans in places like Chicago and New York understand the need to protecting the border.

[Manic_Episode]

OUTSTANDING! ‘MURICA!

[BigEdLB]

Garland will issue an arrest warrant for Abbott and Paxton? Can you say guarantee Trump’s win

[DoughtyOne]

Okay Obama. Your move big fella.

[wetgundog]

The eyes of Texas are upon you, and so is ever red-blooded AMERICAN! Harrah for the Lone Star State!