What if a Governor refused the President the use of military forces??

[socialize_me]

This is interesting...the President is supposed to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and may only pursue war through a declaration by Congress, yet the states no longer hold any representation since the Senate is chosen by direct popular vote. Yet, if the Congress sees fit the United States should go to war, what if, say, the Governor of Montana or somewhere refused to send troops?? Massachusetts did this in the beginning of the War of 1812. I mean, if the states created the federal government and the federal government cannot dictate to the states, aren't the governors of each state the ones who are the ones that approve the authority of use of the armed forces by the President??

What would happen if a governor refused to send troops even if a declaration of war was passed and the President requested them?? How could the federal government force the state to send troops?

[Danke]

Are you talking about the National Guard?

[nate895]

This is much harder today than in the days of the War of 1812. Back then, the militia was made up of everyone (and still is) and was controlled directly by the states, but today the National Guard has taken its place and would probably follow the orders of the President before the Governor, unless if a state seceded. In that case, I doubt that the Guardsmen would attack their own friends and family.

[Agent CSL]

If they refused the president would send his owl Ntl. Guard troops. It could escalate from there. All freedom-lovers would book a train right to Montana and persuade the governor to secede.

[socialize_me]

Are you talking about the National Guard?

No, anyone in the military. Since the states have no representation in the federal government anymore, shouldn't they determine whether they want to be in a war or not? If the governor or a state is a subject of the President, then the federal government is absolute in saying they can take a citizen from California and send them to do the bidding of the federal government. How is that a good thing?

[Truth Warrior]

Does the Governor have nukes?

[Danke]

No, anyone in the military. Since the states have no representation in the federal government anymore, shouldn't they determine whether they want to be in a war or not? If the governor or a state is a subject of the President, then the federal government is absolute in saying they can take a citizen from California and send them to do the bidding of the federal government. How is that a good thing?

If you sign up for military service, you are contractually obligated. And a third party (like a Governor) doesn't have a say. Just because you reside in a particular State, doesn't mean the Governor of that State owns you.

[socialize_me]

Does the Governor have nukes?

No, but your mom does.

[socialize_me]

If you sign up for military service, you are contractually obligated. And a third party (like a Governor) doesn't have a say. Just because you reside in a particular State, doesn't mean the Governor of that State owns you.

Oh God, here we go with the whole Contract Theory..so because you signed a piece of paper, the President of the United States owns you??

Uhm...what happens when the Federal Government breaks its contract with you, as in the US Constitution?? So you have to be bound by what you sign but not them?? Brush up on the Declaration of Independence. According to you, the Federal Government cannot be abolished or questioned if you sign a piece of paper. Very nice..

[Truth Warrior]

No, but your mom does. Then the Governor loses.

[Danke]

Oh God, here we go with the whole Contract Theory..

Uhm...what happens when the Federal Government breaks its contract with you, as in the US Constitution?? So you have to be bound by what you sign but not them?? Brush up on the Declaration of Independence. According to you, the Federal Government cannot be abolished or questioned if you sign a piece of paper. Very nice..

"Contract Theory" ? Take that one to the courthouse.

# Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."

Not sure what the rest of your gibberish is about.

[Kludge]

No, but your mom does.

:confused: Is that you, Wesley?

[literatim]

A governor could refuse the President for the deployment of the National Guard. A State could pass a Constitutional amendment to prevent any state citizens from being used for the military or used unless a declaration of war has been passed by the Congress.

[socialize_me]

"Contract Theory" ? Take that one to the courthouse.

# Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."

Not sure what the rest of your gibberish is about.

Uhm...so the federal government can wiretap your phoneline without warrants and that doesn't violate its contract with you that they should follow the 4th amendment? The President has the ability to violate the Constitution, the same contract you want to bound the states, by sending men and women to war without a declaration by the Congress? Is that the jibberish you can't understand??

So basically the states have to follow Article I Section 10 but the federal government doesn't need to follow the Bill of Rights. Gotcha.

[Danke]

Uhm...so the federal government can wiretap your phoneline without warrants and that doesn't violate its contract with you that they should follow the 4th amendment? The President has the ability to violate the Constitution, the same contract you want to bound the states, by sending men and women to war without a declaration by the Congress? Is that the jibberish you can't understand??

So basically the states have to follow Article I Section 10 but the federal government doesn't need to follow the Bill of Rights. Gotcha.

You really like mixing up apples with oranges.

I'm not sure how one can carry on any logical discussion with you.

[socialize_me]

You really like mixing up apples with oranges.

I'm not sure how one can carry on any logical discussion with you.

LOL how is this apples and oranges?? You're quoting the states cannot violate the Constitution by violating federal contracts with the military. Why do the states need to honor those contracts if the Federal Government violates the Constitution by going to war that was undeclared? This was the similar argument raised by the South in the Civil War.

Why can the Federal Government violate its contract (the Constitution) but not the states if they feel the Federal Government failed in its contractual duties?? It's completely legitimate. You just don't have the capacity of connecting the dots apparently.

[nate895]

LOL how is this apples and oranges?? You're quoting the states cannot violate the Constitution by violating federal contracts with the military. Why do the states need to honor those contracts if the Federal Government violates the Constitution by going to war that was undeclared? This was the similar argument raised by the South in the Civil War.

Why can the Federal Government violate its contract (the Constitution) but not the states if they feel the Federal Government failed in its contractual duties?? It's completely legitimate. You just don't have the capacity of connecting the dots apparently.

It is not a violation of the Constitution to order men who volunteered to serve in the Armed Forces to go to war, no matter what the reason. It would be unconstitutional, and morally wrong, to force someone whose state has seceded to continue with their service.

[Truth Warrior]

HINT: Check the GWB Executive Orders. ;)

[socialize_me]

It is not a violation of the Constitution to order men who volunteered to serve in the Armed Forces to go to war, no matter what the reason.

Wow I must be the only one here with the opinion of we shouldn't have double standards...

So nate895 what you're saying is since the people volunteered by signing a contract, they should be bound to it and thus serve the federal government. Fair enough. Now what happens when the federal government violates its contract with us, as in the US Constitution?? You have to realize if the Government violates the Constitution, it's voiding that military contract you signed. So it's okay for the President to send you to fight and die because you have to honor the contract you signed, but he can send you in terms of a "police action" which does not require the Constitutional obligation of seeking Congressional approval to do so??

That's a double standard and I'm rather awestruck how no one here apparently has the capacity of seeing it. The President can violate the Constitution to send you to war because you signed a contract. So there's no contract the Federal Government has to honor, but you must honor every contract with the government.

So basically we should never have seceded from Britain because we were subjects to the Crown. States should not refuse the demands of the Federal Government even when the Federal Government becomes destructive to the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

Unbelievable.

[brandon]

Because this thread is completely ridiculous and useless, I'm going to steer it into a semi related discussion that might lead to an interesting debate not riddled with faulty logic and poor grammar. Okay?

I will begin with my thesis.

Thesis: Currently, The President is not the Commander In Chief of any part of the military or national guard.

Ok, so now I'll explain why my thesis is correct. Ready? Okay here goes.

Thesis Defense: It is common belief that the president is always commander in chief of the military. The layman will tell you that the constitution gives this role to the president. But the Constitutional Scholar will tell you, "No, it doesn't!" The constitution says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

The last part of the above sentence is a modifier. It implies that the president is not always Commander in Chief. The president is only Commander in Chief when the military is called into "Actual Service." In the absence of a Congressional Declaration of War, neither the Army or the Navy have been "called into actual service."

Conclusion: All orders from the president to the military are illegitimate and should be ignored.

[nate895]

Wow I must be the only one here with the opinion of we shouldn't have double standards...

So nate895 what you're saying is since the people volunteered by signing a contract, they should be bound to it and thus serve the federal government. Fair enough. Now what happens when the federal government violates its contract with us, as in the US Constitution?? You have to realize if the Government violates the Constitution, it's voiding that military contract you signed. So it's okay for the President to send you to fight and die because you have to honor the contract you signed, but he can send you in terms of a "police action" which does not require the Constitutional obligation of seeking Congressional approval to do so??

That's a double standard and I'm rather awestruck how no one here apparently has the capacity of seeing it. The President can violate the Constitution to send you to war because you signed a contract. So there's no contract the Federal Government has to honor, but you must honor every contract with the government.

So basically we should never have seceded from Britain because we were subjects to the Crown. States should not refuse the demands of the Federal Government even when the Federal Government becomes destructive to the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

Unbelievable.

They knew the Federal Government was violating the Constitution when they signed up. If the Feds take it to the next level and start martial law or something of that nature, soldiers would be obligated to not follow their orders. They haven't done that yet.

[socialize_me]

Because this thread is completely ridiculous and useless, I'm going to steer it into a semi related discussion that might lead to an interesting debate not riddled with faulty logic and poor grammar. Okay?

I will begin with my thesis.

Thesis: Currently, The President is not the Commander In Chief of any part of the military or national guard.

Ok, so now I'll explain why my thesis is correct. Ready? Okay here goes.

Thesis Defense: It is common belief that the president is always commander in chief of the military. The layman will tell you that the constitution gives this role to the president. But the Constitutional Scholar will tell you, "No, it doesn't!" The constitution says "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

The last part of the above sentence is a modifier. It implies that the president is not always Commander in Chief. The president is only Commander in Chief when the military is called into "Actual Service." In the absence of a Congressional Declaration of War, neither the Army or the Navy have been "called into actual service."

Conclusion: All orders from the president to the military are illegitimate and should be ignored.

brandonyates...you just proved my point yet you too seem to lack the capacity of being able to consider all the information that's been put on the table.

The President violates the Constitution (a contract...let me say that again, a CONTRACT which nate895 and the other clown says should never be violated) when he sends people to fight and die without a declaration of war. Why, then, do people like nate895 insist that we should be bound to contracts we make with the federal government when the federal government violates the contracts it makes with us?? Doesn't make sense to me!! In fact, if you were in court, the contract would have been voidable. The obligations of the citizens are destroyed when the government fails to fulfill its end.

How is this thread "completely ridiculous"? You're basically repeating everything mentioned, except making the point that we're in a pre-war situation when the context of this entire discussion is that we are currently in an at-war situation. Basically what you spent most of your reply doing was completely unnecessary and rather set back the discussion even further by trying to start from the very beginning.

Fail.

[brandon]

You're basically repeating everything mentioned, .

No I actually brought completely new information to the discussion. Your point just doesn't make any sense. The Governor doesn't send military forces in the first place, so how could he refuse to send them? And we have a volunteer army...people are going on their own volition. Why would you want the governor forcefully stopping someone from serving in their nations military? Wouldn't succession be a better option?

[Danke]

socialize_me = electronicmaji, I'm convinced.

[brandon]

socialize_me = electronicmaji, I'm convinced.

LOL! good call! It all makes sense now. :D

[pacelli]

What would happen if a governor refused to send troops even if a declaration of war was passed and the President requested them?? How could the federal government force the state to send troops?

Give a call to your governor's office and let us know what s/he said.

[Kludge]

:confused: Is that you, Wesley?


socialize_me = electronicmaji, I'm convinced.


Lmao!

Did you know EMI's name is Wesley Useche or did you come up with that on your own?

[brandon]

Lmao!

Did you know EMI's name is Wesley Useche or did you come up with that on your own?

How do you know his real name? hah :D

[Danke]

Lmao!

Did you know EMI's name is Wesley Useche or did you come up with that on your own?

I had no idea. Well, at least I'm not alone in my assumptions. :)

[Kludge]

How do you know his real name? hah :D

I did some original research back when I was banned, bitter, and bored ;)

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMB_en-USUS291&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Electronicmaji+Wesley+Useche

[Jbrabble]

Oh God, here we go with the whole Contract Theory..so because you signed a piece of paper, the President of the United States owns you??

Uhm...what happens when the Federal Government breaks its contract with you, as in the US Constitution?? So you have to be bound by what you sign but not them?? Brush up on the Declaration of Independence. According to you, the Federal Government cannot be abolished or questioned if you sign a piece of paper. Very nice..

You just don't understand how the military is structured. If anyone signs up for the US military, they are signing up to be federal soldiers. The only way to be a soldier of your state is to join the national guard.

[Truth Warrior]

Number of National Guard folks now in Iraq? :rolleyes:

[Danke]

I had no idea. Well, at least I'm not alone in my assumptions. :)

No denials. Telling.


Electonicmaji, go fuck yourself!

[socialize_me]

socialize_me = electronicmaji, I'm convinced.

Because you're a douche bag?

[socialize_me]

No denials. Telling.


Electonicmaji, go fuck yourself!

lol I don't have a fuckin' clue who are in your sexual fantasies, but please don't envision me to be one of them.

I just don't see what's so hard to understand here. Apparently it's okay if the Federal Government does something unconstitutional, but if the states do it, oh hell that can't happen. The reasoning as suggested by nate985?? Ohh, because we knew they were breaking the law beforehand. That makes it all the better. Nice fucking logic, sherlock.

[Danke]

No denials. Telling.


Electonicmaji, go fuck yourself!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1571205&postcount=126

[powerofreason]

This is interesting...the President is supposed to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and may only pursue war through a declaration by Congress, yet the states no longer hold any representation since the Senate is chosen by direct popular vote. Yet, if the Congress sees fit the United States should go to war, what if, say, the Governor of Montana or somewhere refused to send troops?? Massachusetts did this in the beginning of the War of 1812. I mean, if the states created the federal government and the federal government cannot dictate to the states, aren't the governors of each state the ones who are the ones that approve the authority of use of the armed forces by the President??

What would happen if a governor refused to send troops even if a declaration of war was passed and the President requested them?? How could the federal government force the state to send troops?

With guns. They would just seize control.