And what is to say that other states would cooperate with Obama, they could very easily forbid their national guard personnel from invading Texas or any U.S. state and could even deny passage through their state of any army that may try to pass through in route to invade Texas.whipassmt
- They actually can't. State govornors don't have that kind of control over the National Guard.
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]And what is to say that other states would cooperate with Obama, they could very easily forbid their national guard personnel from invading Texas or any U.S. state and could even deny passage through their state of any army that may try to pass through in route to invade Texas.worlock77
- They actually can't. State govornors don't have that kind of control over the National Guard.
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]And what is to say that other states would cooperate with Obama, they could very easily forbid their national guard personnel from invading Texas or any U.S. state and could even deny passage through their state of any army that may try to pass through in route to invade Texas.whipassmt
- They actually can't. State govornors don't have that kind of control over the National Guard.
- And how exactly would they do that?
Legislatures, then?
No. The state can utilize their National Guard units to help in things like natural disaters, riots, etc, but they have no control over the NG militarily. This is to prevent governors from using their NG units as their own private militia.
- They actually can't. State govornors don't have that kind of control over the National Guard.
- And how exactly would they do that?
worlock77
Legislatures, then?
No. The state can utilize their National Guard units to help in things like natural disaters, riots, etc, but they have no control over the NG militarily. This is to prevent governors from using their NG units as their own private militia.
So who has control of the National Guard. But even if the state's rules have no legal force, Guardmembers may voluntarily obey state officials in order to avoid attacking U.S. citizens. Besides the governor could always assign the Guard to some thing that keeps them busy so that they aren't sent to attack Texas.
No. The state can utilize their National Guard units to help in things like natural disaters, riots, etc, but they have no control over the NG militarily. This is to prevent governors from using their NG units as their own private militia.
So who has control of the National Guard. But even if the state's rules have no legal force, Guardmembers may voluntarily obey state officials in order to avoid attacking U.S. citizens. Besides the governor could always assign the Guard to some thing that keeps them busy so that they aren't sent to attack Texas.
Militarily the President has control over the National Guard, just like with any other branch of the US military. And his orders supersede those of the state governors.
No. The state can utilize their National Guard units to help in things like natural disaters, riots, etc, but they have no control over the NG militarily. This is to prevent governors from using their NG units as their own private militia.
worlock77
So who has control of the National Guard. But even if the state's rules have no legal force, Guardmembers may voluntarily obey state officials in order to avoid attacking U.S. citizens. Besides the governor could always assign the Guard to some thing that keeps them busy so that they aren't sent to attack Texas.
Militarily the President has control over the National Guard, just like with any other branch of the US military. And his orders supersede those of the state governors.
so in order to make sure the NatGuard isn't used by governors as their own private militia, the gov't makes the NatGuard the President's private militia, that's dumb.
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] So who has control of the National Guard. But even if the state's rules have no legal force, Guardmembers may voluntarily obey state officials in order to avoid attacking U.S. citizens. Besides the governor could always assign the Guard to some thing that keeps them busy so that they aren't sent to attack Texas.
whipassmt
Militarily the President has control over the National Guard, just like with any other branch of the US military. And his orders supersede those of the state governors.
so in order to make sure the NatGuard isn't used by governors as their own private militia, the gov't makes the NatGuard the President's private militia, that's dumb. Oh isn't that cute Whip is trying to use his critical thinking abilities.. Newsflash, the president doesn't have absolute power over the military.. I bet he wouldn't have a problem if the clergy of the Catholic Church had their own private militia..
If Obama wins people will just go about their daily lives. IF Obama loses, then there will be riots. It will just be Occupy Wall Street all over again; people crapping everywhere, having sex in public, assaulting the police, lighting stuff on fire etc.
Militarily the President has control over the National Guard, just like with any other branch of the US military. And his orders supersede those of the state governors.
sSubZerOo
so in order to make sure the NatGuard isn't used by governors as their own private militia, the gov't makes the NatGuard the President's private militia, that's dumb. Oh isn't that cute Whip is trying to use his critical thinking abilities.. Newsflash, the president doesn't have absolute power over the military.. I bet he wouldn't have a problem if the clergy of the Catholic Church had their own private militia.. And governors wouldn't have absolute power over the state militia either, so the idea of federalizing the National Guard so that the Guard isn't "the governor's private militia" is stupid.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] so in order to make sure the NatGuard isn't used by governors as their own private militia, the gov't makes the NatGuard the President's private militia, that's dumb.
whipassmt
Oh isn't that cute Whip is trying to use his critical thinking abilities.. Newsflash, the president doesn't have absolute power over the military.. I bet he wouldn't have a problem if the clergy of the Catholic Church had their own private militia.. And governors wouldn't have absolute power over the state militia either, so the idea of federalizing the National Guard so that the Guard isn't "the governor's private militia" is stupid. Read "national guard" it will give you a HINT of what exactly kind of GUARD they are..
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Oh isn't that cute Whip is trying to use his critical thinking abilities.. Newsflash, the president doesn't have absolute power over the military.. I bet he wouldn't have a problem if the clergy of the Catholic Church had their own private militia.. sSubZerOo
And governors wouldn't have absolute power over the state militia either, so the idea of federalizing the National Guard so that the Guard isn't "the governor's private militia" is stupid. Read "national guard" it will give you a HINT of what exactly kind of GUARD they are.. state militia is what they were originally, maybe they'de be better kept as such. But their purpose is to guard, and thus they should not be used to invade and attack Texas.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] And governors wouldn't have absolute power over the state militia either, so the idea of federalizing the National Guard so that the Guard isn't "the governor's private militia" is stupid.
whipassmt
Read "national guard" it will give you a HINT of what exactly kind of GUARD they are.. state militia is what they were originally, maybe they'de be better kept as such. But their purpose is to guard, and thus they should not be used to invade and attack Texas. ............. If Texas were to secede it would be a act of treason, and the military would be sent in to overthrow the government.. I hope Texas state government isn't THAT stupid, but you never know from the geniuses down there..
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Read "national guard" it will give you a HINT of what exactly kind of GUARD they are.. sSubZerOo
state militia is what they were originally, maybe they'de be better kept as such. But their purpose is to guard, and thus they should not be used to invade and attack Texas. ............. If Texas were to secede it would be a act of treason, and the military would be sent in to overthrow the government.. I hope Texas state government isn't THAT stupid, but you never know from the geniuses down there.. since when is secesion treason? If states have a good reason to secede (i.e. if the central government is acting tyrannical), they should be able to do so. Although Vermont's reasons for seceding (Iraq war and global warming) are stupid.
There won't be civil war but the Republicans will become more Republicany and the Democrats will become more Democraty. The two sides will become more polarized.
Just another stupid Republicvnt who thinks he's being patriotic by espousing beliefs that completely butcher the fundamental concept of a democracy, nothing new here.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] state militia is what they were originally, maybe they'de be better kept as such. But their purpose is to guard, and thus they should not be used to invade and attack Texas.
whipassmt
............. If Texas were to secede it would be a act of treason, and the military would be sent in to overthrow the government.. I hope Texas state government isn't THAT stupid, but you never know from the geniuses down there.. since when is secesion treason? If states have a good reason to secede (i.e. if the central government is acting tyrannical), they should be able to do so. Although Vermont's reasons for seceding (Iraq war and global warming) are stupid.
The concept of Perpetual Union is one that predates the Constitution even. No, once a state enters into the Union it cannot withdraw from the Union.
I am the only one who noticed that this judge's statement was just a clever way for him and the county comissioner to justify a tax increas to their constituents?
I dont think the judge was talking about seceeding if Obama wins re-election. He was talking about some crazy conspiracy theory of Obama allowing the UN to take control of the US. He was talking about resisting against UN troops. That's not a scenario that would ever happen. The guy is just bat crazy.
Americans didn't revolt when they voted Al Gore for president and got George Bush instead. Really, the widespread idea that Americans have an independent and rebelious don't-tread-on-me mentality is a joke.
There won't be a civil war. Ideology is very patchwork. Person A could have one viewpoint, and their next door neighbor could have the completely opposing viewpoint. It's not so determined by geography and there's not an easy line to draw.
I don't think we can really have a civil war nowadays. We're far from the citizen-soldier America of the Civil War days. We have a professional military who proooobably wouldn't abide by something like that. Also we are waaaaay to fiscally integrated for secession to actually happen.
The idea of a second American Civil War beginning if Barack Obama is reelected as president is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard and this is especially so because of such an unrealistic reason. The American people would not agree to giving sovereignty of the United States to the United Nations. It would take its position of power away and give it to the other members of the United Nations and effectively dissolve the nation. This country already has enough power to surpass the United Nations and the entire world saw it when Iraq was invaded this past decade. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that president Obama or anyone in the United States government would ever do what Judge Head from Texas is worried about.
I am the only one who noticed that this judge's statement was just a clever way for him and the county comissioner to justify a tax increas to their constituents?
I am the only one who noticed that this judge's statement was just a clever way for him and the county comissioner to justify a tax increas to their constituents?
worlock77
I guess so.
No, I noticed that too, but it's par for the course. Republicans don't care if taxes are raised on the middle/poor classes. They only care about the rich.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] ............. If Texas were to secede it would be a act of treason, and the military would be sent in to overthrow the government.. I hope Texas state government isn't THAT stupid, but you never know from the geniuses down there.. worlock77
since when is secesion treason? If states have a good reason to secede (i.e. if the central government is acting tyrannical), they should be able to do so. Although Vermont's reasons for seceding (Iraq war and global warming) are stupid.
The concept of Perpetual Union is one that predates the Constitution even. No, once a state enters into the Union it cannot withdraw from the Union.
So America is like a street gang, the only way out is in a box? Does the U.S. apply the same logic to it's foreign policy: South Sudan should stay part of Sudan? Kuwait should reunite with Iraq? Not to mention that the U.S. got it's independence by seceding from Britain.
Log in to comment