Mikey, here's the link to an article on it:

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453

Quote from: NAYBOR on October 24, 2007, 03:35:13 PM
Mikey, here's the link to an article on it:

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453

Thank you.  It is a good read!

That article had NOTHING to do with State Guard organizations.  The National Guard is subject to Federal recall.  Under the Insurrection Act, the President could not federalize the Guard within a state without the Governor's consent.

Due to the Katrina debacle, the governors have demonstrated that they can't handle that authority, so it has been taken away.

State Guard organizations always remain under the governor, and are not subject to federal call up.  IF they perform a federal mission, they still perform it as state troops on the state's dime.  The Feds can re-imburse the state under Title 10, but that still does not make them federalized Guardsmen.

QuoteState Guard organizations always remain under the governor, and are not subject to federal call up.  IF they perform a federal mission, they still perform it as state troops on the state's dime.  The Feds can re-imburse the state under Title 10, but that still does not make them federalized Guardsmen.

Only because Congress has currently exempted SDFs from being federalized as units -- an exemption which may or may not be valid depending on how you want to read some footnotes in a Supreme Court case involving federalization of the National Guard. 

The "Current" exemption from Federal call-up goes back to the Civil War.

The whole concept of State Guard units is to allow the governor to retain military forces in a state to respond to disasters and state emergencies when the NG is called into Federal service.  This concept is negated if the Feds can call up SG units, too.

Also, SG units are comprised of persons who may not meet the physical and age standards of the active forces, and are not always trained to federal standards.  They have no US-owned equipment, weapons or vehicles, and the Federal government is specifically forbidden to expend funds to train them.

But... they CAN be assigned a Federal mission within the state (guarding airports, for example) and in that case, they would be directed to perform the mission by the governor, paid out of state funds, but the Feds would re-imburse the state for money spent on such a mission under Title 10.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 25, 2007, 02:14:23 AM
That article had NOTHING to do with State Guard organizations.  The National Guard is subject to Federal recall.  Under the Insurrection Act, the President could not federalize the Guard within a state without the Governor's consent....

State Guard organizations always remain under the governor, and are not subject to federal call up.  IF they perform a federal mission, they still perform it as state troops on the state's dime.  The Feds can re-imburse the state under Title 10, but that still does not make them federalized Guardsmen.

I think part of the confusion is the verbage. I've noticed that for some reason, National Guard units are referred to as "State Guard" when not on Federal status. Considering there are also State Guards, or SDF's, or militia, or whatever people choose to call them, there tends to be some confusion as to which are being referred to.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 25, 2007, 02:46:25 PMAlso, SG units are comprised of persons who may not meet the physical and age standards of the active forces, and are not always trained to federal standards.  They have no US-owned equipment, weapons or vehicles, and the Federal government is specifically forbidden to expend funds to train them.

That's an interesting point. It would be difficult for the Federal government to call up an SDF if they won't pay them, and the SDF may not meet the same standards that the military requires. After doing some reading into the USC, it looks like equipment may be transferred to the State Guard, but only if it can't be used by the DOD. Which means you know the quality of the equipment that those SDF's are getting.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 25, 2007, 02:46:25 PMBut... they CAN be assigned a Federal mission within the state (guarding airports, for example) and in that case, they would be directed to perform the mission by the governor, paid out of state funds, but the Feds would re-imburse the state for money spent on such a mission under Title 10.

Another interesting scenario. How would this work? Would the Feds direct a governor to call up an SDF? Or would that governor volunteer his SDF with the condition that the Feds would reimburse? Would it be a contract arrangement?

Quote[The "Current" exemption from Federal call-up goes back to the Civil War.

Wrong again.  Below is all the federal legislation that applies directly to state defense forces. 

QuoteTITLE 32 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 109
Sec. 109. - Maintenance of other troops

(a)  In time of peace, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c).

(b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia to use its National Guard or its defense forces authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace, or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or constabulary.

(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.

(d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence, transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the United States.

(e) A person may not become a member of a defense force established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces

The Supreme Court has indicated that they would probably find that the last part of (c) is invalid should it ever be challenged (not that anyone would).

You might want to read "The American Home Guard" by Barry Stentiford which goes into explicit detail about state defense forces (and their WWI predecessors) and the state-federal relationship. 

OK, I HAVE read "The American Home Guard," and I read your post.  I am not convinced that the laws established under Perpich vs US in any way apply to the State Guard under subsection c of the law you posted.

Perpich's suit involved an attempt to block NG troops who were subject to callup by the president from training outside the United States.  it was a stupid, political suit because the Democrats got their noses out of joint when Reagan decided to support Honduras and El Salvador against the Communists in Nicaragua.  The Democrats supported the Communists.

I am not even certain if Minnesota has a state guard.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 02:35:46 PM
The Democrats supported the Communists.

*Jimmy bites his tongue...*

*serious drifting*

Then how in the world could you make this statement?  The "Current" exemption from Federal call-up goes back to the Civil War.
There was no equivalent to what are now known as state defense forces until the creation of the current National Guard system.  Until then all state militias were potentially subject to federal call up.  

However, congress when it created legislation specifically authorizing state defense forces chose to exempt them from federal call up.  The Supreme Court noted in Perpich:

QuoteThe Governor contends that the state defense forces are irrelevant to this case because they are not subject to being called forth by the National Government and therefore cannot be militia within the meaning of the Constitution. We are not, however, satisfied that this argument is persuasive. First, the immunity of those forces from impressment into the national service appears - if indeed they have any such immunity - to be the consequence of a purely statutory choice, and it is not obvious why that choice should alter the constitutional status of the forces allowed the States. Second, although we do not believe it necessary to resolve the [496 U.S. 334, 353] issue, the Governor's construction of the relevant statute is subject to question. It is true that the state defense forces "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces." 32 U.S.C. 109(c). It is nonetheless possible that they are subject to call under 10 U.S.C. 331-333, which distinguish the "militia" from the "armed forces," and which appear to subject all portions of the "militia" - organized or not - to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses. See n. 21, supra.

So, the Supreme Court says that SDFs may be exempt from federal call-up only because of current federal law and even that "immunity" may not be complete since they could possibly be called up under provisions of a different law.  

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 02:35:46 PM
I am not even certain if Minnesota has a state guard.

They do not..at least not one sanctioned by the state, in which case it would be what is known as a "Rump Militia".

From http://www.calguard.ca.gov/oc/casmr/faqs.htm

QuoteQ. ARE THE CSMR RANKS THE SAME AS FEDERAL RANKS?
CSMR ranks are State and not Federal ranks. All appointments, commissions, warrants, and enlistments are recognized and authorized by the Governor of the State of California through the Adjutant General of the State of California. When on State Active Duty, and if pay is authorized, the pay rate is generally the same as Federal pay for the equivalent rank and time in grade etc. CSMR soldiers render to all members of the military community, and receive from them, all courtesies common to all such members, such as saluting, forms of address etc.

(Emphasis mine)

Are we done here?

I'm not sure that a CSMR faq list has any meaning in context of what CAP is required to do, but I am among the majority that says that CAP should salute them even though it is not required by CAP regulations.

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 06:06:44 PM
From http://www.calguard.ca.gov/oc/casmr/faqs.htm

QuoteQ. ARE THE CSMR RANKS THE SAME AS FEDERAL RANKS?
CSMR ranks are State and not Federal ranks. All appointments, commissions, warrants, and enlistments are recognized and authorized by the Governor of the State of California through the Adjutant General of the State of California. When on State Active Duty, and if pay is authorized, the pay rate is generally the same as Federal pay for the equivalent rank and time in grade etc. CSMR soldiers render to all members of the military community, and receive from them, all courtesies common to all such members, such as saluting, forms of address etc.

(Emphasis mine)

Are we done here?

Um, no?

As often as CA tells the federal gov't where to go, they cannot in fact issue instructions to federal organizations such as the military.

Any salutes given by federal military given to state militias is a matter of courtesy and politeness, not the result of directives.  You can (and maybe should) offer: they cannot compel.

Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2007, 02:59:52 PM
Then how in the world could you make this statement?  The "Current" exemption from Federal call-up goes back to the Civil War.
There was no equivalent to what are now known as state defense forces until the creation of the current National Guard system.  Until then all state militias were potentially subject to federal call up.  

However, congress when it created legislation specifically authorizing state defense forces chose to exempt them from federal call up.  The Supreme Court noted in Perpich:

QuoteThe Governor contends that the state defense forces are irrelevant to this case because they are not subject to being called forth by the National Government and therefore cannot be militia within the meaning of the Constitution. We are not, however, satisfied that this argument is persuasive. First, the immunity of those forces from impressment into the national service appears - if indeed they have any such immunity - to be the consequence of a purely statutory choice, and it is not obvious why that choice should alter the constitutional status of the forces allowed the States. Second, although we do not believe it necessary to resolve the [496 U.S. 334, 353] issue, the Governor's construction of the relevant statute is subject to question. It is true that the state defense forces "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces." 32 U.S.C. 109(c). It is nonetheless possible that they are subject to call under 10 U.S.C. 331-333, which distinguish the "militia" from the "armed forces," and which appear to subject all portions of the "militia" - organized or not - to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses. See n. 21, supra.

So, the Supreme Court says that SDFs may be exempt from federal call-up only because of current federal law and even that "immunity" may not be complete since they could possibly be called up under provisions of a different law.  

The current legislation recognized the tradition of state guard units.  They have gone under different names, but the principle of having an exclusively-state force that the governor can call upon when the federal govt called out the militia has been present since the Civil War.

I did some research into the battle history of the Ohio Military Reserve, and discovered that many of the units engaged against Morgan's Raid were what were then called "Home Guard Militia," and that some of the current OHMR units trace their lineage to those units.

The Court's reference to Title 10's authority to call out the militia "Organized or not" is the government's authority to DRAFT, not to call out second-line and ill-equipped troops from the state.

Quote from: ddelaney103 on October 26, 2007, 06:18:51 PM

Quote from: Falshrmjgr on October 26, 2007, 06:06:44 PM
From http://www.calguard.ca.gov/oc/casmr/faqs.htm

QuoteQ. ARE THE CSMR RANKS THE SAME AS FEDERAL RANKS?
CSMR ranks are State and not Federal ranks. All appointments, commissions, warrants, and enlistments are recognized and authorized by the Governor of the State of California through the Adjutant General of the State of California. When on State Active Duty, and if pay is authorized, the pay rate is generally the same as Federal pay for the equivalent rank and time in grade etc. CSMR soldiers render to all members of the military community, and receive from them, all courtesies common to all such members, such as saluting, forms of address etc.

(Emphasis mine)

Are we done here?

Um, no?

As often as CA tells the federal gov't where to go, they cannot in fact issue instructions to federal organizations such as the military.

Any salutes given by federal military given to state militias is a matter of courtesy and politeness, not the result of directives.  You can (and maybe should) offer: they cannot compel.

Seems to me that you are confusing "CUSTOMS" with Law.  Bottom line:  "Customs and Coutesies" are exactly that, CUSTOMS and COURTESIES.

So, as a "paramilitary" organization, we have Customs to render proper greetings (salutes) as Courtesies to those who also belong to similar organizations.  How hard is that?

My point was not to reference a source law or regulation, but merely to point to a fairly authoritative source for guidance.  Seems to me that if the CSMR trains its members to expect courtesies from the Active Component, they probably have a pretty good leg to stand on, or I imagine that the stink would get pretty smelly pretty quick otherwise.

Look, if you feel awkward rendering a hand salute, then just wear the stupid golf shirt.  Only one who might salute then is your Caddy.

As a complete aside, we had Militias with elected officers long before we had a standing army.  Militia Officers  are no less officers than any officer. And in fact, I would argue, legal pretense aside, CAP is a militia as well.  Just an odd-ball sort of hybrid militia, but a militia nonetheless.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 26, 2007, 06:35:37 PM
The Court's reference to Title 10's authority to call out the militia "Organized or not" is the government's authority to DRAFT, not to call out second-line and ill-equipped troops from the state.

Seems to me, the Founding Fathers considered all able bodied males as members of the unorganized militia.  See the Second Amendment.   :angel:

Any state militia has always been potentially subject to "federalization".  Yes, even during the Civil War there were state militia units that operated under state control even during combat operations.  However, that wasn't because of any legal requirements that prevented the feds from taking them --- the feds didn't want them.  It just served their purpose to let the states control those particular units.  They had enough problems on their hands without worrying about manning small scattered garrisons.