BOISE, Idaho (March 22, 2023) – Last week, an Idaho Senate committee held a hearing on a bill that would require the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a big step toward restoring the founders’ framework for a state-federal balance under the Constitution.
The Senate State Affairs Committee introduced Senate Bill 1145 (S1145) on March 6. Titled the Defend the Guard Act, the legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing the Idaho National Guard or any member thereof into “active duty combat” unless Congress has passed an official declaration of war or has taken an official action under article I, § 8, clause 15 of the Constitution to explicitly call forth the Idaho National Guard for the enumerated purposes to expressly execute the laws of the united states, repel an invasion, or suppress an insurrection.
“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:
- Participation in an armed conflict;
- Performance of a hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state; or
- Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.
“Official declaration of war” is defined as “an official declaration of war made by the United States Congress pursuant to clause 11, section 8, article I of the United States Constitution.”
The passage of S1145 would take a step toward reasserting state control over its Guard troops.
On March 17, the Senate State Affairs Committee held a hearing on S1145.
Dan McKnight from Bring Our Troops Home testified in favor of the bill and explained the constitutional basis for the Defend the Guard Act. He pointed out that the current AUMFs that have been used to justify war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries provide for no oversight, no restrictions, and no budget limitations.
Several veterans also testified in favor of the bill. West Point graduate Ryan Spoon summed it up this way.
“Members of this committee, patriotism is not endless war. Patriotism is certainly not sending the National Guard to expand our nation’s ability to wage endless war. Patriotism is ensuring American blood is only spilled when absolutely necessary to ensure our national survival. Please help us tell Washington D.C. that Idhao’s National Guard will only be used to defend the American homeland.”
National Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts, with over 650,000 deployed since 2001. Military.com reports that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.” More specifically, Idaho National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Southwest Asia and other countries.
Since none of these missions have been accompanied by a Constitutional declaration of war, nor were they in pursuance of any of the three conditions set forth in Article 1 Sec. 8, the Defend the Guard Act would have prohibited those deployments.
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” Through the Dick Act of 1903, Congress organized the militia into today’s National Guard, limiting the part of the militia that could be called into federal service rather than the “entire body of people,” which makes up the totality of the “militia.” Thus, today’s National Guard is governed by the “militia clauses” of the Constitution, and this view is confirmed by the National Guard itself.
Clause 15 delegates to Congress the power to provide for “calling forth the militia” in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.
During state ratifying conventions, proponents of the Constitution, including James Madison and Edmund Randolph, repeatedly assured the people that this power to call forth the militia into federal service would be limited to those very specific situations, and not for general purposes, like helping victims of a disease outbreak or engaging in “kinetic military actions.”
RETURNING TO THE CONSTITUTION
The founding generation was careful to ensure the president wouldn’t have the power to drag the United States into endless wars. James Madison made this clear in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.
Congress has abrogated its responsibility and allowed the president to exercise almost complete discretion when it comes to war. The passage of Defend the Guard legislation would pressure Congress to do its constitutional duty.
West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.
“For decades, the power of war has long been abused by this supreme executive, and unfortunately our men and women in uniform have been sent off into harm’s way over and over,” he said. “If the U.S. Congress is unwilling to reclaim its constitutional obligation, then the states themselves must act to correct the erosion of constitutional law.”
Passage of Defend the Guard would also force the federal government to only use the Guard for the three expressly-delegated purposes in the Constitution, and at other times to remain where the Guard belongs, at home, supporting and protecting their home state.
While getting this bill passed won’t be easy and will face fierce opposition from the establishment, it certainly is, as Daniel Webster once noted, “one of the reasons state governments even exist.”
Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Oklahoma Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”
S1145 needs to be brought up for a vote in the Senate State Affairs Committee and pass by a majority before moving forward in the legislative process. Supporters of the bill should contact their own state senator and urge them to cosponsor and support the bill today.
- Now in Effect: Montana 2nd Amendment Financial Privacy Act - October 1, 2023
- Now in Effect: Montana Law Significantly Expands Right to Try Act - October 1, 2023
- New York Bans Facial Recognition Technology in Schools - September 28, 2023