Do states have a military?

[RCA]

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a state government is taking over by Constitutionalists and starts giving Washington trouble. What would prevent the the President from declaring martial law in that state if that state has no military?

[nate895]

The National Guard, and the militia, which in my state is all able-bodied non-objector males between 18 and 45.

[TGautier421]

*ahem*

It's called the National Guard. Every state has their own. The President also would like to believe, through his 'executive orders' that he has control over these soldiers. If the Governor had any balls, he/she would stand up to the government and keep control of their own force. They are also the only standing army deemed Constitutional.

I'm a Guardsman, btw.

[RockEnds]

Yep, the National Guard is the individual state militias who have been repeatedly deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan through executive order while being replaced by Homeland Security forces.

[nate895]

Yep, the National Guard is the individual state militias who have been repeatedly deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan through executive order while being replaced by Homeland Security forces.

They aren't the militia technically. You aren't forced to be a guardsmen, and can't be forced to become a guardsmen, the militia is all able-bodied males between 18-45 who do not conscientiously object to warfare (AKA, they are hippie pacifists).

[RockEnds]

They aren't the militia technically. You aren't forced to be a guardsmen, and can't be forced to become a guardsmen, the militia is all able-bodied males between 18-45 who do not conscientiously object to warfare (AKA, they are hippie pacifists).

Yes, that's the traditional and historical militia, and it still is the real militia. But, the National Guard has been commonly regarded as the state militia. My comment was confusing. Sorry.

[RCA]

So why call state military the NATIONAL Guard and not State Guard? The title was what was throwing me off.

[RockEnds]

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,108361,00.html

[RedLightning]

So why call state military the NATIONAL Guard and not State Guard? The title was what was throwing me off.

Well, there are State Guards.
http://www.txsg.state.tx.us/

[demolama]

Since the federal Constitution forbade the states from having standing armies the only military allowed is the militia.

Dick Act of 1903 created the National Guard from the old militia system. This was done to reflect the new Imperialistic America. Basically just because the National Guard are state run doesn't mean the Federal government cannot operate them against the state... see (University of Alabama 1963).

The old militia system was made up of every able man 17 - 40. It was the state protection against invasion and civil unrest. It was only with the governors permission that they were activated for federal duty and there was nothing the federal government could do about it if he refused.

The War of 1812 saw the States of Mass, Conn, and RI refuse a presidential order to call up the militia.


You see since the militias were defensive tools against invasions they could and often refused to do offensive maneuvers for the federal government. War of 1812 saw the New England militias refuse to invade Canada, the Mexican War saw militias refuse to invade Mexico, etc. This was a problem for conducting offensive wars and had to be changed in order for the federal government to conduct offensive wars and the whole civil war where militia stood against militia to defend their state didn't sit well with the federal government.

So now even though the governor is technically in charge of the National Guard... all it takes is federalization to be used against them. Not a very good protection for your state actually

[slothman]

...the militia is
all able-bodied males between 18-45 who do not
conscientiously object to warfare (AKA, they are
hippie pacifists).

So all people either like to be in the military or are hippies.
That sounds like a nice "false dichotomy".

[Micah Dardar]

Jeez, I would like to be in the National Guard if it simply meant that I was a ready and able bodied person to defend my neighbors and friends. Without the president and his foreign wars, the National Guard wouldn't be so bad.

[nate895]

So all people either like to be in the military or are hippies.
That sounds like a nice "false dichotomy".

I'm talking about the militia. It doesn't matter with the militia if you like to be in the military or not, it matter whether or not, for religious reasons, you oppose warfare in all cases whatsoever or not. You would have to state that because you're a quaker, hippie pacifist, etc., you cannot serve in the militia.

[Micah Dardar]

I'm talking about the militia. It doesn't matter with the militia if you like to be in the military or not, it matter whether or not, for religious reasons, you oppose warfare in all cases whatsoever or not. You would have to state that because you're a quaker, hippie pacifist, etc., you cannot serve in the militia.

I oppose warfare until they cross my line in the sand. After that, all hell breaks loose.

[DeadtoSin]

I'm talking about the militia. It doesn't matter with the militia if you like to be in the military or not, it matter whether or not, for religious reasons, you oppose warfare in all cases whatsoever or not. You would have to state that because you're a quaker, hippie pacifist, etc., you cannot serve in the militia.

I'm a Baptist, and I'm a pacifist. We aren't all "hippies" as you mentioned at first. At least you backed off from that when questioned, but you don't have to be a Quaker or anything. As long as you are conscientiously objecting to war on a moral or religious reason and have a history of living out your beliefs then you are a conscientious objector.

[nate895]

I oppose warfare until they cross my line in the sand. After that, all hell breaks loose.

Hence, your inclusion in the militia, the only military unit you can be rightfully forced to serve in.

[nate895]

I'm a Baptist, and I'm a pacifist. We aren't all "hippies" as you mentioned at first. At least you backed off from that when questioned, but you don't have to be a Quaker or anything. As long as you are conscientiously objecting to war on a moral or religious reason and have a history of living out your beliefs then you are a conscientious objector.

That is why I included et cetera, I don't know every sect or each person within that sect's belief on pacifism. I just said hippie because most of the people who oppose warfare these days are just hippie weasels, they don't object because of profound religious principles, but rather that they'd rather smoke pot than go to war.

[TGautier421]

That is why I included et cetera, I don't know every sect or each person within that sect's belief on pacifism. I just said hippie because most of the people who oppose warfare these days are just hippie weasels, they don't object because of profound religious principles, but rather that they'd rather smoke pot than go to war.

That's seriously an idiotic statement. Not trying to bash on you or anything, but most pacifists have very good reasons for not wanting to go to war. I would like to think as a species we have evolved past the need to fight. Just because there is a regimen of fear and oppression pushed on us mainly for profiteering at the highest sect doesn't mean we are a warlike species anymore.

[nate895]

That's seriously an idiotic statement. Not trying to bash on you or anything, but most pacifists have very good reasons for not wanting to go to war. I would like to think as a species we have evolved past the need to fight. Just because there is a regimen of fear and oppression pushed on us mainly for profiteering at the highest sect doesn't mean we are a warlike species anymore.

Not the ones I have met. Most I have met are, indeed, hippies. As far as evolving past the need to fight, I doubt that. There will be wars until the end of time. There will always be dictators who seek to expand power, and their will be the need for those who have been attacked to defend themselves from foreign invasion.

[RockEnds]

That is why I included et cetera, I don't know every sect or each person within that sect's belief on pacifism. I just said hippie because most of the people who oppose warfare these days are just hippie weasels, they don't object because of profound religious principles, but rather that they'd rather smoke pot than go to war.

I'll be sure to pass that info along to my Amish and Mennonite neighbors.

[nate895]

I'll be sure to pass that info along to my Amish and Mennonite neighbors.

There are apx. 1,200,000 Amish and Mennonites combined in the United States, and I'd guess maybe another 2,000,000 true pacifists in other Christian denominations, that is apx. 1% of the population. I believe there at least that many left-wing socialist pot heads. I have met Mennonites (and they make wonderful pie), but not as many as I have of the socialists.

[nate895]

I want to clarify that I don't think that just because you are a pacifist means you are a hippie. And, btw, I hope everyone knows that my original comment was indeed a joke, it wasn't meant to be taken all that seriously.

[Pericles]

Much of the above information is not correct.

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

The National Guard is subject to Presidential mobilization without consent of Congress, which is contrary to the militia clauses -

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (Article I, Section 8; Clause 15)

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, (Clause 16)

Additionally National Guard Officers are required to meet Federal guidelines for appointment and service, contrary to the right to appoint officers of the militia being reserved to the states.

Constitutionally, the National Guard is a "select militia" which can be used by the state for civil control and support, or by the federal government for military purposes.

Because the Feds usually allow the Guard to be called up by the state, most states have neglected any type of true militia organization - and others, such as Texas, have a Texas State Guard (with no weapons) for civil purposes. There was an oops moment with Katrina, as the LA Guard was in Iraq at the time, and no units were available - thus the "homeland security" mission for active Army brigades.

So, if we have anything worth defending, we need to form our own unitsin the unorganized militia, and see if any state will use the same.

In the parameters of the original question, that is what a state would have to do in the case of enforcing its rights vs. the federal government - call forth the unorganized militia (not the National Guard because it belongs to the Feds) to enforce the Constitution of the United States.

[nate895]

Much of the above information is not correct.

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

The National Guard is subject to Presidential mobilization without consent of Congress, which is contrary to the militia clauses -

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (Article I, Section 8; Clause 15)

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, (Clause 16)

Additionally National Guard Officers are required to meet Federal guidelines for appointment and service, contrary to the right to appoint officers of the militia being reserved to the states.

Constitutionally, the National Guard is a "select militia" which can be used by the state for civil control and support, or by the federal government for military purposes.

Because the Feds usually allow the Guard to be called up by the state, most states have neglected any type of true militia organization - and others, such as Texas, have a Texas State Guard (with no weapons) for civil purposes. There was an oops moment with Katrina, as the LA Guard was in Iraq at the time, and no units were available - thus the "homeland security" mission for active Army brigades.

So, if we have anything worth defending, we need to form our own unitsin the unorganized militia, and see if any state will use the same.

In the parameters of the original question, that is what a state would have to do in the case of enforcing its rights vs. the federal government - call forth the unorganized militia (not the National Guard because it belongs to the Feds) to enforce the Constitution of the United States.

You also have to look at your own state's constitution, like mine says that the militia is all able-bodied, ... males 18-45 are in the militia.

[RSLudlum]

I like the tone of this thread but prefer politiacl discourse first. And on that note what is the news on Real ID? Has there been any news on the states rejecting it? Is it dead in the water or what?

I just started compiling a letter for my state reps and Gov. Sanford on possibly dropping some State regulations and going so far as challenging fed regulations. With the current economic state of affairs, it would be very, very advantateous for States to allow established and up n coming businesses to expand with less regulatory inhibitions. First of all, if it does get really bad, the government, State/Federal, will not have the funds to enforce the regulations, and second of all, it will benefit gov't to relax some regulations in order to concentrate on more important issues, like what is originally intentioned, our constitutional rights (for lack of a better understanding, most think the Constitution guarantees rights, but infact it only limits the government's action upon rights).

I would encourage everybody here to do the same. Gov. Sanford has already been kicking n screaming that our state reps reconviene for an across the board 3% or more cut in the state budget.

[libertarian4321]

Hence, your inclusion in the militia, the only military unit you can be rightfully forced to serve in.

Who's going to "force" you to serve?

If you are down to the point where fat, untrained citizens are "forced" to fight, it means the government no longer has any ability to "force" anything.

[libertarian4321]

Not the ones I have met. Most I have met are, indeed, hippies. As far as evolving past the need to fight, I doubt that. There will be wars until the end of time. There will always be dictators who seek to expand power, and their will be the need for those who have been attacked to defend themselves from foreign invasion.

BTW, there is no nation that could even hope to invade the USA. We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. Our navy has more capital ships (by far) than the rest of the world combined (hence, no nation could hope to attack the USA unless it had land access).

Who's going to "invade"- Canada? lol

We don't need to worry about other nations attacking us, we need to worry about our government running amok and starting stupid wars in other nations...

[RockEnds]

There are apx. 1,200,000 Amish and Mennonites combined in the United States, and I'd guess maybe another 2,000,000 true pacifists in other Christian denominations, that is apx. 1% of the population. I believe there at least that many left-wing socialist pot heads. I have met Mennonites (and they make wonderful pie), but not as many as I have of the socialists.

lol. They do make wonderful pie!

[RSLudlum]

BTW, there is no nation that could even hope to invade the USA. We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. Our navy has more capital ships (by far) than the rest of the world combined (hence, no nation could hope to attack the USA unless it had land access).

Who's going to "invade"- Canada? lol

We don't need to worry about other nations attacking us, we need to worry about our government running amok and starting stupid wars in other nations...

I don't know about that...I just got through reading Andrew Bacevich's "The Limits of Power" and he has a quite convincing arguement on the fallacy of US's military might and FSD (full spectrum dominance)....One prime example is the IED's issue. How is it we're the most technologically advanced military force in the world and the Iraq/Afghanastan campaign is pretty much brought to a halt by such simple devices??? He points out that 2 issues are undeniable in warfare: unpredictability ("the realm of chance" Carl von Clausewitz) and risk.

We are putting ourselves at risk with massive debt both public and private and at the same time, the government through it's own devices keeping information submerged from the citizens which breeds certain unpredicatability....Could this transfer into a stateside attack from foreign entities?? Probable and could prove disasterous if it comes to that. We are very vulnerable at this point in time. Would American's even believe/not believe the media/government if we were atttacked by outsiders? Why would Putin come out and say the American era of global dominance is over? Political reasons or because many countries believe it to be true. Our leaders know this is a critical time bc. they see the dollar as the reserve currency being questioned and they don't want it ot be challenged. For it to fail would mean 'our leaders' having to confessed they have failed in 'providing' for us therefore a loss in power they are unfortunately given by the citizens of this country.


oh and btw, it's good to keep in mind "quality is much more preferred over quantity" esp. in dollars/spending.

[Captain America]

is it possible for a individual state to recall there National Guard Troops, even if the Federal Government is opposed to the dictation?

[BarryDonegan]

Total Force Act stole the national guard. A good governor w some bizballs should stand up and take his National Guard back. Also, a sheriff is chief law enforcement in a county and all federal law enforcement in his county are subservient. a sheriff could kick the feds out.

[Captain America]

Total Force Act stole the national guard. A good governor w some bizballs should stand up and take his National Guard back. Also, a sheriff is chief law enforcement in a county and all federal law enforcement in his county are subservient. a sheriff could kick the feds out.


the key is local and state government.

we must control the state and local governments, everyone reading this should put themselves in a position to run and be elected to local and state government.
Most importantly Governor of the State, State Legislative Representatives, County Coordinator and Sheriff, Mayors of major cities.

[TGautier421]

the key is local and state government.

we must control the state and local governments, everyone reading this should put themselves in a position to run and be elected to local and state government.
Most importantly Governor of the State, State Legislative Representatives, County Coordinator and Sheriff, Mayors of major cities.

This.

My state thoroughly opposed the bailout. We were also shown how drained our resources were when that huge tornado ripped through Greensburg, KS and 60% of our troops were deployed overseas. Gov. Sebelius was not happy with the Feds.

[nate895]

the key is local and state government.

we must control the state and local governments, everyone reading this should put themselves in a position to run and be elected to local and state government.
Most importantly Governor of the State, State Legislative Representatives, County Coordinator and Sheriff, Mayors of major cities.

I am thinking about running in 2010 for state house. I'm 16, so it would be the first year I am eligible to run.

[idiom]

I have *never* heard of a hippie refusing to defend America from an invading force. When Vietnam invaded... oh um... when Korea invaded... oh Um .... When Panama invaded...

Tell me again when was America last invaded? Oh right, bloody Indian pacifists.

[mediahasyou]

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a state government is taking over by Constitutionalists and starts giving Washington trouble. What would prevent the the President from declaring martial law in that state if that state has no military?

Nothing. Good luck with your government.

Only withdrawing consent could prevent the gov from declaring martial law. No voting or taxes coming in makes it harder for them to keep the pyramid scheme.

[nate895]

I have *never* heard of a hippie refusing to defend America from an invading force. When Vietnam invaded... oh um... when Korea invaded... oh Um .... When Panama invaded...

Tell me again when was America last invaded? Oh right, bloody Indian pacifists.

Dude, it was a joke. Though, I still maintain that if we were invaded, hippies wouldn't fight.

[kirkblitz]

SC has a offical state militia and we also have the national guard.

[kahless]

The people in each state would finally have a voice on foreign policy matters if the governers had the balls to stand up to the federal government.

For foreign engagements like Iraq you would end up with North Eastern states keeping their National Guard troops home while other states would submit to the federal government by willfully sending troops into foreign wars. If it was Darfur probably the opposite would happen.

[TruckinMike]

The National guard is no more the militia (that our founders referred to) than the moon is made of cheese.

Who signs the guardsmens paycheck? Local communities, States? Or is it the Federal government? The NG was bought and paid for by the FEDS during the Spanish-American war. The states took the bait of allowing the fed Gov to use the troops if they paid for them... the rest is history. From that moment on the NG no longer was truly beholden to the state. It was all part of nationalization of America.

Todays guards are in effect 100% federalized. We have NO militia (much less an unpaid volunteer militia) to protect the Constitution, states rights, and community. The NG would simply follow orders from above, trash the Constitution, and Flash bang grenade your wife and children while you're away from home. ie- Katrina illegal gun confiscation anyone????? "...just following orders". That was the phrase of the day. And you will hear it again, its coming to a city near YOU..Link to the National Guard Disgrace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8)

TMike

PS- For the few and TRUE National Guard patriots, those of you that actually have read the Constitution, understand the Constitution, and have sworn to protect it --- the time is NOW for you to stand up and question authority when an unconstitutional order is given.

PPS- Don't be offended by this post, its not meant to be taken personal, its what happens to government when the people become apathetic, the National Guard as a whole is simply a symptom of our (governments) sickness. And I understand that many hearts are in the right place, I just wish that they would study the Constitution instead of blindly following the induced patriotic fervor; which facilitates the rationalization of unconstitutional actions.

[tpreitzel]

The National guard is no more the militia (that our founders referred to) than the moon is made of cheese.

Who signs the guardsmens paycheck? Local communities, States? Or is it the Federal government? The NG was bought and paid for by the FEDS during the Spanish-American war. The states took the bait of allowing the fed Gov to use the troops if they paid for them... the rest is history. From that moment on the NG no longer was truly beholden to the state. It was all part of nationalization of America.

Todays guards are in effect 100% federalized. We have NO militia (much less an unpaid volunteer militia) to protect the Constitution, states rights, and community. The NG would simply follow orders from above, trash the Constitution, and Flash bang grenade your wife and children while you're away from home. ie- Katrina illegal gun confiscation anyone????? "...just following orders". That was the phrase of the day. And you will hear it again, its coming to a city near YOU..Link to the National Guard Disgrace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8)

TMike

PS- For the few and TRUE National Guard patriots, those of you that actually have read the Constitution, understand the Constitution, and have sworn to protect it --- the time is NOW for you to stand up and question authority when an unconstitutional order is given.

PPS- Don't be offended by this post, its not meant to be taken personal, its what happens to government when the people become apathetic, the National Guard as a whole is simply a symptom of our (governments) sickness. And I understand that many hearts are in the right place, I just wish that they would study the Constitution instead of blindly following the induced patriotic fervor; which facilitates the rationalization of unconstitutional actions.

Generally, I agree. I'm not really sure that the ULTIMATE motive for someone joining the National Guard is patriotism. In most cases, the reason for joining the National Guard or branches of the federal military is monetary which means that most soldiers are mercenaries by definition. How many soldiers would be soldiers if they weren't paid a wage in money, but were paid in amenities to do their job, i.e. housing, clothing, food, gear, etc.? Sad, but true. Our "volunteer" military is comprised largely of mercenaries.

[nate895]

Generally, I agree. I'm not really sure that the ULTIMATE motive for someone joining the National Guard is patriotism. In most cases, the reason for joining the National Guard or branches of the federal military is monetary which means that most soldiers are mercenaries by definition. How many soldiers would be soldiers if they weren't paid a wage in money, but were paid in amenities to do their job, i.e. housing, clothing, food, gear, etc.? Sad, but true. Our "volunteer" military is comprised largely of mercenaries.

They aren't by definition mercenaries

Mercenary:

"motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party"

Therefore, anyone who is in the armed forces and paid the same as their pay grade is not a mercenary.

[tpreitzel]

They aren't by definition mercenaries

Mercenary:

"motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party"

Therefore, anyone who is in the armed forces and paid the same as their pay grade is not a mercenary.

You can use that definition if you like, but your average soldier is still a mercenary if he or she serves primarily for monetary gain. Whether an individual is paid MORE is secondary to the fact that the person is serving primarily for monetary gain instead of altruistic reasons.


Webster's definition of mercenary:

" one that serves merely for wages ; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service"

[demolama]

I was never a mercenary... I joined to serve my state and my country... when I noticed how much the guard was being used away from the nation I knew it was not the militia I was told it was. When rumors were true that they were going to invade Iraq... I walked away and took the consequences that came with it. I was not about to be involved in a preemptive war against a non-aggressive nation.

[TGautier421]

You can use that definition if you like, but your average soldier is still a mercenary if he or she serves primarily for monetary gain. Whether an individual is paid MORE is secondary to the fact that the person is serving primarily for monetary gain instead of altruistic reasons.


Webster's definition of mercenary:

" one that serves merely for wages ; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service"

Shut the fuck up.

I joined so I could go to College. Thats pretty much the main reason for most of us to join the Guard nowadays. A few years ago, Patriotism was the main reason. The money is just a perk.

Dangle thousands of dollars and college tuition in front of 18-20 year olds and see what happens. You can't even live off the amount they give us anyways.

[Pericles]

is it possible for a individual state to recall there National Guard Troops, even if the Federal Government is opposed to the dictation?

Been tried already - see

http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/334/case.html

The governor of Minnesota wanted to prevent the National Guard of Minnesota from being sent on a overseas deployment order by the Feds, based on the Guard being the militia of Minnesota, and thus limited to the roles provided in the Constitution.

The case is Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)

The Governor's attack on the Montgomery Amendment relies in part on the traditional understanding that "the Militia" can only be called forth for three limited purposes that do not encompass either foreign service or nonemergency conditions, and in part on the express language in the Militia Clause reserving to the States "the Authority of training the Militia." The Governor does not, however, challenge the authority of Congress to create a dual enlistment program. [Footnote 19] Nor does the Governor claim that membership in a state Guard unit -- or any type of state militia -- creates any sort of constitutional immunity from being drafted into the federal armed forces. Indeed, it would be ironic to claim such immunity when every member of the Minnesota National Guard has voluntarily enlisted, or accepted a commission as an officer, in the National Guard of the United States, and thereby become a member of the reserve corps of the Army.

The unchallenged validity of the dual enlistment system means that the members of the National Guard of Minnesota who are ordered into federal service with the National Guard of the United States lose their status as members of the State militia during their period of active duty. If that duty is a training mission, the training is performed by the Army in which the trainee is serving, not by the militia from which the member has been temporarily disassociated.

"Each member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States who is ordered to active duty is relieved from duty in the National Guard of his State or Territory, or of Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, from the effective date of his order to active duty until he is relieved from that duty."

32 U.S.C. § 325(a).

This change in status is unremarkable in light of the traditional understanding of the militia as a part-time, nonprofessional fighting force. In Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120 (1879), the Illinois Supreme Court expressed its understanding of the term "militia" as follows:

"Lexicographers and others define militia, and so the common understanding is, to be 'a body of armed citizens trained to military duty, who may be called out in certain cases, but may not be kept on service like standing armies, in time of peace.' That is the case as to the active militia of this State. The men comprising it come from the body of the militia, and when not engaged at stated periods in drilling and other exercises, they return to their usual avocations, as is usual with militia, and are subject to call when the public exigencies demand it."

Id. at 138. Notwithstanding the brief periods of federal service, the members of the state Guard unit continue to satisfy this description of a militia. In a sense, all of them now must keep three hats in their closets -- a civilian hat, a state militia hat, and an army hat -- only one of which is worn at any particular time. When the state militia hat is being worn, the "drilling and other exercises" referred to by the Illinois Supreme Court are performed pursuant to "the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress," but, when that hat is replaced by the federal hat, the Militia Clause is no longer applicable."

Thus, the National Guard belongs to the States when the Feds don't want to use it.