Rookie Representative and Libertarian going along to get along with Republicans Aaron Aylward (R-6/Harrisburg) offers a bill which makes me think I finally get a chance to wave my Stars & Stripes in eager agreement with my conservative neighbors.
“An Act to require an official declaration of war before the National Guard may be deployed overseas,” reads the title of House Bill 1122. Hot dog—sounds great! Stop using National Guard troops in unconstitutional deployments, keep part-time soldiers out of the purely Executive exercises of adventurist imperialism. This practical bill beats merely flying a flag from your McMansion porch. HB 1122 appears to offer our troops the best support possible: keeping them home with their families and at their day jobs.
Before I go all camo-crazy, however, I ask for one careful reading to make sure the real intent of this bill is to keep our National Guard out of Iraq, Afghanistan or other foreign lands and that there is no secondary motive. Here, read House Bill 1122 in full:
Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added:
33-3-3.1. Release of units–Declaration of war–Other official action.
The South Dakota National Guard and any member thereof may not be released from the state into active duty combat unless the United States Congress has made an official declaration of war or has taken an official action pursuant to Article I, § 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution, to explicitly call forth the South Dakota National Guard and any member thereof for the enumerated purposes to execute the laws of the Union, repel an invasion, or suppress an insurrection. The Governor shall take all actions necessary to comply with the requirements of this section. Active duty combat, as used in this section, means:
(1) Participation in an armed conflict;
(2) Performance of a hazardous service related to an armed conflict in a foreign nation; or
(3) Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war [House Bill 1122, introduced 2021.01.28].
HB 1122 says South Dakota National Guard troops cannot be deployed outside of our state into “active duty combat” unless Congress declares war or officially calls them up to “execute the laws of the Union, repel and invasion, or suppress an insurrection.” HB 1122 gives a fairly standard definition of “active duty combat”, and criterion #2 clearly says that includes going to war overseas. Again, sounds good.
But criterion #3 (and the criteria are separate, independent, connected by or) says “active combat duty” includes “performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.” Over the last couple weeks, National Guard troops from South Dakota and numerous other states have performed duties in Washington, D.C., while carrying various instrumentalities of war. Those Guards served a vital purpose, quelling the open insurrection perpetrated by supporters of the loser of the 2020 Presidential election. Yet those Guards came at the invitation of the Pentagon, not by any official action of Congress.
Enact House Bill 1122, and a similar response to a similar insurrection at the United States Capitol, disrupting Congress and preventing a formal vote, South Dakota’s National Guard could not respond to a Pentagon call to defend the Constitution…. at least until Congress could scurry to a secure location and convene an emergency session off-site.
I want to vote for HB 1122. I want to stop sending our Guard troops for long, family-wrecking deployments to endless undeclared wars. But I don’t want to fall for any tricks from crafty rookie Representatives that might actually hamstring lawful efforts to suppress insurrection. Send some experts to committee, and let’s make sure HB 1122 doesn’t provide unintended aid and comfort to the dangerous domestic enemies of our great nation.
Defend what from who? the boys are proud!
Federal law preempts freshman Aaron’s feel-good proposal. The SDNG is funded almost entirely by the federal government. A president has some federal strings attached as to call-up for federal service, but the state is a mere state and would have a heavy burden to prove that a presidential call-up violated federal law or the supremacy clause. Regional, localism such as this proposal does nothing to enhance the national guard’s reputation with the Regulars. This proposal smacks of the sour experience selfish states used dithering with their militia in supporting General Washington.
Alternatively, why should the federal government fund the SDNG if the state forbids or shackles its employment?
We should realize these 105 legislators lack adequate professional staff, but geez, one thinks that they’d run wild-eyed proposals past the state guard bureau, inquire with the federal national guard bureau, or at least a senior member of the judge advocate general’s office.
Wanting to curtail federal overseas adventurism is laudable. But change the national policy through the national government, beginning with senators who reduce pentagon funding and rescind the War Powers Act. “War is a Racket“, wrote MG Smedley Butler, in his anti-war, anti-foreign adventurism classic.
Extra credit. MG Butler also defeated the first seditious insurrection attempt on the US government.
John, that’s a good point: the Golden Rule tells us that the agency providing the gold makes the rules. South Dakota can’t in good conscience take federal cash to fund all those weekend hijinks and then decline to respond to federal calls to action.
Aylward appears to be copying his bill from other states (Hawaii, West Virginia, Michigan…) that have proposed similar “Defend the Guard” measures. John, do you know any of these measures have passed and withstood court challenge?
It appears Aylward got his model legislation from the group I linked above, BringOurTroopsHome.US, which argues that states can restrict deployment of the National Guard under the Tenth Amendment. The advocates note that their legislation has not passed in any state yet, but they are pushing to introduce Defend the Guard measures in every state. Hmm… maybe they should start an initiative petition.
Jan 6th a day that will live in infamy, a date where drumpf and magats out-Benghazied HRC because of a video tape which included drumpf and other scumbag magats rousing the terrorists to attack US gubmint property and kill people. (sound familiar?)
Where are the hypocritic magats that wanted HRC thrown in jail and prosecuted for allowing Benghazi?
Cory, What is it with the extremist and the elitist wings of the Republican Party that they get their bills from out-of-state bill mills? They have to be dumb if they can’t write their own legislation that deals with South Dakota issues. Grudz likes to complain about out-of-state folks commenting here, but he’d be better off if he understood just how controlled South Dakota politicians are by out-of-state interest groups.
“Before I go all camo-crazy, however….”
Kristofer Goldsmith*
Jan 24
‘Glad to see the phrase “Global Far Right” here. White supremacy, white nationalism, white extremism — isn’t just a global phenomenon of radicalized hatred. It’s organized: w training, shared propaganda, financial backing, leadership, command structure.
The Global Far Right, and its various white extremist organizations, is a far greater threat to the West and democracy than Al Qaida or Saddam Hussein ever was. The Global Far Right gets elected. They run police departments. They’re in our militaries.’
*Founder+Prez @HighGroundVets
@TrumanProject DefCon. http://VVA.org/trollreport.
…cited NYTs “Apocalyptically Minded”