17

Recall the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Great, so states have militias (of which the National Guard is a major component) to protect themselves from tyranny by the federal government.

However, I also read:

When National Guard units are not under federal control, the governor is the commander-in-chief of the units of his or her respective state or territory

So, wait a second... part of the militia that's supposed to protect the state from the federal government is under the control of... the federal government? How is that supposed to work?

In the event of a dispute, is the National Guard's loyalty to the state and its governor, or to the federal government the president?

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Sam I am Apr 6 '18 at 14:07
  • 4
    "*the militia that's supposed to protect the state from the federal government *" That's such a wrong interpretation, no matter how hard I try, I can't figure out how you did 1 + 1 = 23. – RonJohn Apr 7 '18 at 5:53
  • 2
    @RonJohn I think that reasoning ("armed citizenry can protect itself against rogue government", especially the federal government) is maybe a part of some pro-gun, invoking-the-second-amendment propaganda. – ChrisW Apr 7 '18 at 10:21
  • The connection between the 2nd amendment's mention of militias and the National Guard is tenuous, at best. This question is based on the premise that a primary purpose of any state's national guard is protection against a federal government. I do not believe that is in any way a universally agreed concept. – user1530 Apr 11 '18 at 20:07
  • "State" could mean a country in some contexts, as opposed to a U.S. state. – Stormblessed Jun 30 at 19:50
35

TL:DR; Some states still do have militias.

Realistically, in the modern era the U.S. states are not expected to require defense from the federal government, nor would such a defense seem possible if the entire U.S. military was willing to robotically follow unlawful or tyrannical orders (something which their oath to the Constitution forbids).

At the time of the founding of the U.S., the creation of a national military was a topic of concern to some, particularly Anti-Federalists. Not everyone was entirely on board with the creation of a national government at all. Hence the initial failed Articles of Confederation which had created more of a loose coalition of states. Even after the ratification of the Constitution, militias did indeed continue to provide the backbone of the U.S. Army up until the 20th century.

The Militia Act of 1903 and National Defense Act of 1916 began a process of army reform, which by WWII had led towards the structure of the modern nationalized National Guard we see today.

But that was not the end of independent state militias. Congress amended legislation in order to allow them to officially raise additional military forces other than the National Guard. These State Defense Forces cannot be nationalized by the federal government and would generally serve under the command of their state governor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

However most states do not choose to maintain an active militia (other than the National Guard) even though nearly all of them have laws authorizing the state government to create one.

  • 4
    So long story short, the modern National Guard is a national militia, not a state militia? – thanby Apr 5 '18 at 18:44
  • 1
    @thanby I think its more complicated than that. I think Naiad is referring to the Oath of Enlistment, which has an enlisted person swear to obey the orders of the President and the officers above them. However, the Officers swear to a very different oath which does not have this clause, replacing that with a phrasing which is pretty much as far from the idea of "robotic" as you can possibly get. – Cort Ammon Apr 5 '18 at 20:04
  • 2
    @CortAmmon The Oath of Enlistment still begins by swearing "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" only after which swearing to obey the orders of the President and officers above them "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" which disallows obeying unlawful orders. The Oath of Enlistment doesn't give the President any ground to stand on for expecting unlawful orders to be obeyed by enlisted servicemembers. – Derek Elkins Apr 7 '18 at 7:29
  • The National Guard wears two hats, both state and fed, depending on who deploys them. The militia however, as framed in the second amendment and expounded in the Federalist papers, is the entire able bodied populace. – Drunk Cynic Apr 12 '18 at 3:46
  • 1
    @Drunk Cynic The militia is not a militia until it is raised. If your State has not called you to service, you are not a member of a militia. The entire able bodied populace could indeed be drafted into a militia with a command structure. They are not a "militia" except for when that occurs. In reality, current law would also just effectively give a Federal mobilization legal priority over a State mobilization. Raising a militia against the U.S. government would be an act of war/treason (depending on your perspective, but certainly one or the other). – Tal Apr 12 '18 at 15:55
14

Justice of the Supreme Court Paul Stevens:

Congress may authorize members of the National Guard to be ordered to active federal duty for training outside the U. S. without either the consent of a state governor or the declaration of a national emergency.

and

The governor [of Minnesota] doesn't challenge the authority of Congress to create a dual-enlistment program.In a sense, all [Guard members] must now keep three hats in their closets-a civilian hat, a state militia hat and an Army hat-only one of which is worn at any particular time.

and

The unchallenged validity of the [...] system means that members of the National Guard of Minnesota who are ordered into service with the National Guard of the U.S. lose their status as members of the state militia during their period of active duty.

Source.

This is from a 1990 sentence of the SCOTUS to a lawsuit presented by the governor of Minnesotta arguing against deployment for training of State Guard units in Central America countries. It is not much of a stretch to understand that if the State consent is not needed for a training mission in peacetime, it won't be needed when the unit is activated in an state of emergency or war.

And the basis for the veredict seems to be the Enumerated powers of the USA Constitution, which include:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


How is that supposed to work?

If the State government does not agree with Federal laws or the Federal government actions, it is supposed to begin a lawsuit that will likely (always?) end before the SCOTUS. If SCOTUS does not agree with the State government, tough luck.

And, in a more informal setting, the Federal government imposing harsh, unfair measures against an state will most likely mean a significant reduction in the support of the political parties promoting those measures, not only in the state affected but in others. Given that all the major parties in the USA are national, it means that no major party can push those measures without the risk of a considerable cost.


Do people just trust that in the event of a dispute, the National Guard's loyalty will be to the state and its governor rather than the president?

That was already tried. I have no hard data to back it up, but I think that most people do not want to repeat the experience1. And certainly it was ruled as "not legal".


1 I will guess that even includes most Civil War reenactors. But maybe they could be enticed if they were allowed to use historical gear.

  • 4
    [1] - And even so I believe they would like to keep the bleeding part out – Mindwin Apr 5 '18 at 14:42
  • 1
    Interestingly, the enumerated powers of the SCOTUS do not actually include the right of judicial review. So theoretically the states are supposed to be the final arbiters of what is and is not constitutional. Not that you'd be likely to get anywhere with that argument at this point without being willing to fight another civil war over it... – Perkins Apr 6 '18 at 20:45
  • @Perkins "So theoretically the states are supposed to be the final arbiters" ...or judicial review is an inherent part of the Supreme Court's powers, being necessary and proper for them to do their job. – owjburnham Jul 1 at 8:44
  • @owjburnham If you take that interpretation of "Necessary and proper" then the whole "enumerated powers" thing and the entire 10th amendment is meaningless because one of the powers is effectively "anything the federal government, at its sole discretion, thinks is a good idea." The constitution was originally a pact between the states. The federal government was the management agent for that relationship. The agent does not get to dictate to the principals the extent of its own authority. The constitution would never have been ratified if that were what its intent had been understood to be. – Perkins Jul 1 at 16:25
10

Another relevant example was the "Little Rock crisis" -- see Arkansas National Guard and the integration of Central High School. The timeline as I understand it was:

  • Some people want to "integrate" the school
  • There's a federal (Supreme) court ruling to do that
  • Segregationists protest
  • The Governor sends the National Guard to keep the peace -- to keep the peace by preventing integration
  • The Mayor asks the President for help
  • The President acts to enforce the federal court order:
    • "Federalises" the national guard (to remove the Governor's control of the National Guard), and sends it home
    • Sends some of the 101st Airborne Division, to keep the peace while integration is enacted

There's rather a sweet video on the subject here, Operation Arkansas and the 101st, narrated by a historian of the 101st, which explains the timeline and which ends,

"... and as it turned out, with the deployment of the Screaming Eagles to Little Rock, the situation stabilized very quickly."

  • 3
    While this story is a very good example for how much authority the federal and state governments have over the national guard, it still doesn't answer the question: How can a state defend itself against aggression from the federal government? Can it at all? The answer by Tal is answering this question. – Philipp Apr 5 '18 at 15:01
  • 4
    This also addresses the part of the question which asks, "Do people just trust that in the event of a dispute, the National Guard's loyalty will be to the state and its governor rather than the president?" -- apparently the answer to that may be, "No". – ChrisW Apr 5 '18 at 15:45
  • 3
    I would call this federal aggression; using military to enforce national laws in a state. The right or wrong of it isn't relevant to state vs federal military powers. – user9389 Apr 5 '18 at 16:13
  • 3
    @notstoreboughtdirt I'd agree, at least, that it's "the use of armed force" -- would that that were always so non-violent! The video said that it was "President Eisenhower wanting to make sure that the Governor of Arkansas complied with the Supreme Court ruling". The ruling was Brown v. Board of Education -- the Justices ruled unanimously, on the basis of "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution". – ChrisW Apr 5 '18 at 17:11
  • 2
    This video at about time 15:00 tells a different story -- that ultimately the Governor had been persuaded not to defy the federal government, and withdrew the Guard leaving city police (and "the Little Rock nine", the school kids) to face a mob. So the 101st was deployed, not to oppose "State Laws", nor even the board of education, but against mob rule (e.g. lynching perhaps). At time 16:45 there's footage of the Governor saying "we are now an occupied territory" -- but cry more, imo. The interviews with other students at time 21:00 is nice too. – ChrisW Apr 5 '18 at 19:53
10

The 'Militia' and the 2nd Amendment

The National Guard is part of the 'militia,' but it is not all of it.

Under current law, the 'militia' of the United States literally includes all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Even so, the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is not limited to the 'militia,' but rather explicitly applies to "the people." The mention of 'militia' in the 2nd Amendment is only in its preamble, not in its operative clause. As such, it does not place any limits on the extent of the 2nd Amendment's correct application.

So, the protections intended by the 2nd Amendment aren't secured only (or even mostly) by the National Guard, but rather by a pretty close approximation of everyone.

The National Guard

While the National Guard is legally part of the 'militia,' its primary purpose is not to protect states against the federal government. The state National Guard units are intended more for defense against foreign invasion or, much more commonly, to respond to major natural disasters and other similar needs. Still, it could theoretically be used to defend a state against the federal government if the federal government became aggressive and the leadership of the state National Guard decided to follow the state rather than the federal government. While it's (thankfully) very rare to have such a need, state-level militias siding with the state against the federal government is not without precedent in the U.S.

Whose Orders are Followed?

When discussing events of armed resistance against the national government, discussion of who is supposed to legally obey whose orders has only limited usefulness. The whole point of having the 2nd Amendment is to make sure that the people can stop obeying the government if the need arises. Armed insurrection is pretty much always illegal, by definition. Nevertheless, the framers of the U.S. Constitution considered preserving the possibility of such an insurrection if the government became tyrannical to be necessary for maintaining freedom. That they thought this is not particularly surprising, considering that most of them had just participated in such a rebellion several years earlier.

The reality is that, in the event of a crisis to the level of people feeling taking up arms against the government to be necessary, who follows whose orders comes down a lot more to individuals deciding which (if any) side they will join, rather than whose orders they were supposed to 'legally' follow. What is 'legal' becomes questionable when you suddenly have two (or more) governments claiming authority over the same area and those governments have very different opinions of what is legal. The more relevant question then becomes who will the people (and especially the people who are armed) choose to follow and that question will be answered by the particular circumstances surrounding the rebellion rather than by what is legally required.

  • 2
    With that in mind, then General George Washington was constantly putting down insurrections that arose from a lot of gaps in the Articles of Confederation, which formed a weaker federal government. Part of the reason for the Constitution ("A more perfect Union") was specifically to address some failings of the Confederation. – hszmv Apr 5 '18 at 20:19
  • 2
    Even more importantly, as the term was used in 1791, the term militia encompassed the town watch, which is a role now service by law enforcement agencies like municipal and state police forces. The first police force in the United States didn't come into being and replace local militias and posses in that role until the late 1800s (in Philadelphia IIRC). So, the successor to the modern militia is to a great extent first responders including the police. This militia is also hit pretty hard when the national guard is called up because lots of guardsmen are also cops. But, LEOs still remain. – ohwilleke Apr 5 '18 at 22:03
  • 2
    @hszmv That's quite the overstatement. Shays' rebellion happened during the time period you mention, but it was put down by a privately-funded militia at the direction of the Governor of Massachusetts. Washington did lead the response to the Whiskey Rebellion, but that was after the Constitution was already in place and he was President. The rebels dispersed before he arrived and the ~20 arrested were acquitted or pardoned. At any rate, neither event involved a state rebelling against the national government, but rather a (relatively small) subset of residents rebelling against a state. – reirab Apr 5 '18 at 22:20
  • @ohwileke: The Militia term as defined in this response is still valid as you can still make a Citizens Arrest of a criminal (the police do not like when this happens for a number of reasons, mostly liability issues, but if done within the bounds of the law, it's still a valid arrest.). – hszmv Apr 6 '18 at 12:52
  • Point of interest: The last time the "general militia" was called up in the United States was to defend the Alaska Territory from the Japanese during WWII. So the concept isn't as "ancient history" as some people would have you believe. It hasn't been called up since, but that's probably because nobody's tried to invade US territory since, and it's not the kind of thing you can really use for fighting overseas. – Perkins Jul 1 at 16:35
6

The individual servicemen have a say in the matter

This is unfortunately mostly anecdotal evidence, but for a mostly hypothetical topic such as this, I don't know what hard evidence I can give. But with that qualification, it is ultimately up to the individual members of the Guard to whom their loyalty lies in case of a state attempting to protect itself from the tyranny of the Federal government.

The first line of argument is to look at what happened in the Civil War. In that case, a large number of regular US Army officers resigned their commissions to join the Confederacy, including most of the famous generals like Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and JEB Stuart. It is reasonable to assume that many National Guard today would prefer to serve their state rather than their nation. If that is the case, especially for the officers, then it is unlikely that the Federal government could 'take control' of the state guards at all.

The second line of argument is personal experience with National Guardsmen. My brother in law, for example, does not say that his is in the 'National' guard, but rather the Wyoming Guard. The paraphernalia associated with the state guard is state paraphernalia, rather than Army paraphernalia; simply things like sweaters and hats. While not determinative, I suggest that the name on your clothing is an indication of loyalty.

The third line of argument is personal experience as a military officer. I can assure you that young men and women who have taken the officer's oath to support and defend the constitution frequently discuss the meaning of 'all enemies...domestic.' Without having found any definitive polls on the matter, I would suggest from my experience that 'enemies domestic' is considered by many to refer to the Federal government itself, for which many military personnel have grave mistrust. As evidence I offer a poll before the 2016 election which showed support for Gary Johnson, the libertarian, anti-war, small government candidate essentially tied with Trump with 37% support among all military personnel, and first among military officers with 39% support. To show that this was not a Trump related phenomenon, look at this report of political donations from self-reported military personnel. Despite losing a primary to Mitt Romney, Ron Paul received the same amount of campaign donations from military personnel (Not counting DOD civilians: $359,774) as of Aug 31 before the 2012 election as Obama ($359,743), and more than Romney ($215,392). Ron Paul was, again, a small government, anti-war, libertarian candidate.

Conclusion

While the states do not have any de facto protection from the Federal government usurping their National Guard units, I believe that there is evidence from both he Civil War and current National Guard attitudes that individual servicemen, up to the highest ranking officers, would prefer their state's service. Furthermore, I believe there is evidence from current servicemembers political alignment that the US military is not interested in pressing Federal claims against State governments.

  • 1
    Does it matter what the US military is "interested in"? An order like the Little Rock one, or like yesterday's border proclamation, is either obeyed, or... – Beanluc Apr 5 '18 at 21:20
  • +1 love the experience and insights, thank you! – Mehrdad Apr 5 '18 at 21:29
  • This is not true. If you are a member of the national guard, you are a soldier in the US Army. You answer to the commander in chief above all else. There is no confusion about this. When you enlist in the National Guard, you are enlisting in the US Army (the full title of the branch of the military is "The Army National Guard") – user1530 Apr 11 '18 at 20:09
3

Many people have answered with far more detail, but I think the real answer comes down to this: the question of whether states can have their own armies, as it were, not subject to Federal control was decided by the Civil War.

As noted in another answer, the original form of government in the 13 colonies - the Articles of Confederation - saw the relationship of the states being more akin to the relationships of countries in Europe in the modern EU, where they are still distinct nations with militaries; if memory serves me right, the states under the Articles could have their own currencies, etc.

After the Articles of Confederation failed, the Constitution was drafted to make one nation, with one currency, one foreign policy, etc. the states (or at least some) felt they needed to have their own 'army' to possibly defend against foreign powers - or even possibly the Federal government.

The Southern states tried the equivalent of Brexit in the 1860s. It was decisively decided that that was not an option, and that states cannot take military action against the Federal government.

3

The purpose of the state militias was not primarily to defend the states against the tyranny of the Federal government. The purpose of the state militias was to defend the state and the nation as a whole against foreign invasions, to fight hostile Indians, and to crush riots, revolts, and revolutions against the state governments, as well as to protect the states against the tyranny of the federal government.

As a result of the reliance on the militias of the states and territories, the army of the federal government, the regular army or the United states Army, was kept small during the the 18th and 19th centuries. Too small to effectively police the frontier between settlers and the various Indian tribes and to keep people, white and red, safe from the brutal violence of frontier warfare.

But the state militias tended to lose their military effectiveness almost from the beginning of the US constitution. Though every citizen was supposed to keep a rifle and ammunition ready and to report for periodic drilling, the militia laws were usually unenforced and in, for example, the War of 1812, most of the militia that was mustered was badly lead, often unequipped, and untrained, and was not of much military use.

And for most of the 19th century the militia remained somewhat better than no militia at all, but in most cases of rather limited military value.

To add to the small regular army and the small militia forces available, the US government raised temporary troops during the Northwest Indian War, the United States levies. In St. Clair's disastrous defeat in 1791, the highest ranking officer killed was Richard Butler, major general of United States Levies.

In the War of 1812, The Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War, units of volunteers were raised. States and territories would recruit volunteers, organize them into units up to regimental size, and commission the officers (who were often elected by the soldiers of their units).

The units would then be mustered into Federal service, and the officers and men would be paid, equipped, and supplied by the federal government. Thus in accounts of Civil War battles most of the regiments have state designations, like the 69th New York Infantry, for example.

At the turn of the 19th century the modern system of National Guard developed, with voluntary membership instead of the universal membership theoretically decreed by the old militia laws, and with joint federal and state control.

Did the southern states regret the decline of the militia system when the Civil War came along and wish they had kept strong militias to protect them from federal tyranny? Maybe.

But there were only 16,000 men in the United States Army in 1861. In December 1863 the Rebel forces reached their peak strength of 464,646 men while the federal forces reached their peak strength of 1,000,516 in May 1865, almost of the men both armies being in temporary volunteer forces.

Thus the size and the effectiveness of the state militias and of the United States Army was of little importance compared to the vast armies of volunteers raised and equipped by both sides.

And the memory of the death and destruction and suffering of the Civil War has probably kept almost all later Americans from considering resorting to armed force to try to oppose any tyrannical actions by local, state or federal governments, and they have usually preferred to oppose tyranny with peaceful protests, politics, and appeals to the courts. The fear of another widespread Civil War is enough to keep most Americans from resorting to armed uprisings to oppose perceived government tyranny.

Thus the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment has become unfulfilled, due to the 19th century failure to maintain effective state and territorial militias and the reluctance to start another terrible Civil War.

  • +1 but Wikipedia literally says "Madison calculated while writing Federalist Paper 46 that the standing military, controlled by the federal government, should be kept under a maximum of 30,000 troops, enough to defend America against other nations but not enough to oppress the states. The people themselves... in order to protect themselves from the federal government overpowering them.. were encouraged to constitute a total militia of at least 500,000 people." which seems to contradict the point that the point of the militias wasn't to defend against oppression by the federal government... – Mehrdad Apr 11 '18 at 19:23
  • @Mehrdad there's no contradiction there. Madison is saying that 'not having a large federal army' is what protects the states...not the states themselves having militia. (in either case, the world is much different today so his numbers don't make much sense anymore) – user1530 Apr 11 '18 at 20:13
  • @blip: Wait, what? Are you reading the same thing I'm writing? It literally says: "The people themselves... in order to protect themselves from the federal government overpowering them... were encouraged to constitute a total militia of at least 500,000 people." And read the introduction in this article: "In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias." And yeah obviously the world is different today but that's beside the point. – Mehrdad Apr 11 '18 at 20:29
  • @Mehrdad yea, you're right. Actually, the more I read that, the more I think Madison might be contradicting himself. I'm suddenly thinking Madison didn't fully think through things there. (I'm also curious as to where he figured the 50:3 ratio was the key...it actually seems excessive...). But, now I'm digressing... – user1530 Apr 11 '18 at 20:58
  • @blip: What confuses me is why everybody here seems to think I'm completely crazy when I say the point of the militias was to prevent federal oppression. I thought that was such a basic/well-known/obvious fact that it didn't even need justification, but everyone here seems to think I pulled the entire idea out of nowhere. Am I just reading outright lies when it comes to history or does everyone have their own idea of what the reasoning behind the constitution was?! – Mehrdad Apr 11 '18 at 21:13
1

You're missing an important piece of the puzzle which is, what are they protecting themselves from?

Posse Comitatus

In any case, there is law on the books about what "Federalized" Troops (be they regular Army units or National Guard Units are and aren't allowed to do. This is the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents troops from being used to enforce domestic law. It's important to note that there are limitations to this restriction that allow for emergency reactions in the event of loss of control (Los Angeles Riots) or in other cases Natural Disasters (New Orleans).

Part of the issue with the way Posse Comitatus is written (and has been interpreted) is that it typically is concluded to only apply to enforcing Domestic law against Domestic citizens. The current proposed deployment of troops to the border then may or may not be interpreted to be applying "domestic law" but if it is applied against people crossing the border illegally, one could argue they were at least not Domestic citizens. In this situation, the states have essentially nothing to protect themselves again.

The Problem With Little Rock

The easiest and most direct comparison to make here is the Federalization of the National Guard to enforce Federal sanctuary laws. This was not ever challenged in court but the precedent is that Federal Activation trumps State Activation. Per the chain of command then, National Guard units could not be used to defend a state from Federal aggression if they were Federalized (which could happen before or after the event in question).

(The current proposal, however, does not have troops acting in that capacity. They are attempting first a state of cooperation with the Border State Governments to work things out.)

This activation, in fact, points out one of the inconsistencies (and exceptions) of the Posse Comitatus act in that it was the Federal Government enforcing Federal Law over State Law.

So let's look at an example. Let's say hypothetically, the President announces his intention to deploy troops along the border, and a random State, let's say, California decides not to comply. There are a number of approaches each can take, but the State is on decidedly shaky legal ground.

As we've discussed if California were to activate their National Guard they could deploy them away from the border. However, the Federal government could then Federalize them and redeploy then, if the President decided it was a sufficiently dangerous enough crisis. This would not (as discussed above) be unprecedented legally).

There are then two likely outcomes - California sues to block Federal assumption of the troops (which could go either way) or the California National Guard refuses Federal orders (illegally) in which case California because an insurrectionist state. This being the United States, a legal challenge rather then an actual military confrontation is much more likely.

Either way, it's an exciting time to be alive.

See the Other Answers Too

Other answers here have done a fine job of explaining that difference between State and Federal activation of troops, militias, and other things so I'm going to leave my answer at that.

0

The thing to keep in mind is that not every state guardsman will follow his oath to the us constitution and could go rouge either by pressure of officers or out right deviancy. Say for hypothetical example Georgia. Say the army for some reason maybe the state resisting a radical president ex Bernie Sanders. Through legislation in the congress they are supposed to now abolish private insurance firms in the state but Brian kemp refuses. The national guardsman can just simply ignore the federalization or mass resign and swear allegiance to Georgia as members of the Georgia State Defense Force or the Georgia Department of Public Safety. It’s a stretch but in a passionate cause they will refuse to follow federal orders.

  • 3
    Do you have any evidence to support this? For example instances of this happening in the past? – JJJ Jun 30 at 19:13
  • 1
    Donald Trump is considered a radical president by some, and yet the National Guard have not "resisted" him. I hardly think they're going to resist Bernie Sanders, and certainly not on the scale that you seem to be implying. – F1Krazy Jun 30 at 20:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.