DOD says " if the NG doesn't take the jab, we will decertify them". OK Governor responds "Pound Sand". This is playing out as a very interesting wrinkle in the globalists plans. If more red states follow suit and pull their NG from the fed registry, that put quite a dent in the available man power for say, use during martial law. There is even the potential for escalation in this situation, and given Poopy pants erratic behavior, well, there are many rabbit holes one could slip into. Decentralize the Military: Why We Need Independent Militias | Ryan McMaken 07/29/2016Ryan McMaken Early Americans feared the federal government would overwhelm the states with a large standing army and better-armed military force. To prevent this, many supported a decentralized system of state militias which would provide the bulk of military land forces within the United States. Over time, though, the federal government has increasingly centralized military power and diminished the role of state governments in military funding and planning. While privately-owned firearms have their role in balancing against federal power, the decentralized militia system — now defunct — was intended to play a much larger role in preventing the establishment of an overwhelming federal military force. The Early Years: A "Well-Regulated Militia" As originally conceived in the 1770s, the United States was a confederation of independent states assembled for the purposes of military defense. Thus, it is not surprising that the text of the first US Constitution — the so-called Articles of Confederation — is primarily concerned with foreign and military affairs. Most of the document deals with arming an army and navy, and conducting international affairs such as making treaties, appointing military officers, and funding military equipment. The framers of the document, however, were careful to allow states opportunities to veto federal actions. According to the text: The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances ... nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same. In other words, a super-majority of nine member states — more than two-thirds of the states — was necessary for approval of any military actions on the part of the central government. This did not mean the states were defenseless, otherwise. The document was clear that the states themselves were to provide most of the land forces: [E]very State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. Those familiar with the Second Amendment will recognize the phrase "well-regulated ... militia" which was eventually incorporated into the new Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights. This phrase reflected what was, by the late eighteenth century, a commonly accepted political reality in the United States. Namely, that state militias were the primary means of dealing with threats from neighboring governments, Indian tributes, and internal rebellions. The United States maintained a permanent professional military force, but it remained small and inadequate to address any large scale military operations. As designed, the militias were to be the means by which threats from an excessively powerful central government were to be repulsed. We see this in Patrick Henry's own arguments against the new constitution when he concluded that without locally-controlled arms to oppose the armies of a national government, the member states themselves would be defenseless. In response to the suggestion that citizens could assert their rights by assembling the people in a legislative body, Henry sarcastically declared: Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only necessary to assemble the people! Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves are gone. … Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? A [federally-controlled] standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? During the ratification period for the new Constitution, anti-federalists frequently expressed concern that the new federal government may be strong enough to raise a standing army that would dwarf the power of the state-controlled militias. Standing armies, of course, had long been synonymous with abusive government, and targeted by liberals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Anti-federalists understood the importance of a decentralized and locally-controlled military power as a check on centralized political power. The Purpose of a Decentralized Militia For this reason, the anti-federalists demanded the adoption of what we now know as the Second Amendment which reflected their view that state control of military resources was an important defense against the power of Congress and the federal executive power. Nowadays, many opponents of gun control often support the idea that the militia is — to use George Mason's words — "all men capable of bearing arms." This is no doubt one (correct) interpretation of the term "militia" as used by the anti-federalists. But it is not the only interpretation. The anti-federalists — and the framers of the earlier constitution — assumed the necessity of a "a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered" by the state governments themselves. They assumed this precisely because it was such an established part of the status quo in the late eighteenth century. In times of war, it was also assumed that the states themselves would supply a sizable number of the troops and armaments necessary for defense. That is, the federal government would be partially dependent on the state governments for supplying troops to wars. This situation endured through the nineteenth century, during which, in many cases, the states themselves would continue to play an active and independent role in supplying military forces. We see this in the text of the current constitution itself where it gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." State Opposition to "calling forth the militia" While the Constitution of 1787 does not provide an explicit veto on the use of state militias, there were nevertheless both statutory and customary barriers to presidents drawing upon local troops without local consent. In some cases, state governments asserted control over state militia troops when federal orders conflicted with state agendas. For example, during the War of 1812, the governor of Vermont Martin Chittenden attempted to recall Vermont troops that had been federalized by the US government and sent to New York. Chittenden declared "[It] has been ordered from our frontiers to the defence of a neighboring state ... [and] placed under the command, and at the disposal of, an officer of the United Sates, out of the jurisdiction or control of the executive of this state." During the same conflict, the state legislature of Connecticut issued a declaration passed by both houses: "it must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE, SOVEREIGN, and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic." (emphasis in original) At the time, the governor of Connecticut refused to comply with a requisition request from the United States Secretary of War. The governor condemned the federal attempt at nationalizing the militia and wrote: "By the principles of the proposed plan ... our sons, our brothers and friends are made liable to be delivered, against their will and by force, to the marshals and recruiting officers of the United States, to be employed not for our defence, but for the conquest of Canada ..." The state assembly concluded that the federal demands were "not only intolerably oppressive, but subversive of the rights and liberties of the state, and the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the same, and inconsistent with the principles of the constitution of the United States." According to William Chauncey Fowler, writing in his book Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut: The Governor of Connecticut took the ground that, by the constitution fot he United States, the entire control of the militia is given to the state, except in certain specified cases, namely: to execute the laws of the union, the suppress insurrection, and to repel invasions, and he contended that neither of these cases actually existed. He also took the ground that the militia could not be compelled to serve under any other than their own officers, with the exception of the president himself, when personally in the field.
Don't forget, the U.S. Military is strictly subordinate to the civilian leadership, AND, sworn to uphold the Constitution as written! Sippy Cup has no power over Them or Us here on our shores, and even states are strictly limited in what powers they hold, and for how long! The chain of command is also very specific when it comes to Militia or Nat.Guard, Gov'ners, Sheriff, Adjunct General/Admiral and that's it!
A bit more clarifications. The Oklahoma National Guard Refused the Vax Mandate. The Pentagon Is Not Pleased. | Ryan McMaken When State Governors Tried To Take Back Control of the National Guard | Ryan McMaken
"the U.S. Military is strictly subordinate to the civilian leadership, AND, sworn to uphold the Constitution as written!" Often wondered which takes precedence up holding the Constitution or civilian leadership and who would determine and to what degree the civilian leadership's violated the Constitution and warrants the military taking control. Bidumb has ignored the SC ruling to secure the border -you or I would have to follow SC rulings or be prosecuted why is Bidumb immune.
He is not immune, it is just who is going to do something about it? The people are still in charge technically though they perish for a lack of knowledge.
