Talk:National Guard (United States)/Archive 1

Date of being a federal reserve force

The side bar states: "As state-funded militia under various names: 1636–1903 As federal reserve forces called the National Guard: 1903–present" However, the Dick Act in 1903 did not require the title "National Guard," it recommended it, nor did it federalize the soldiers. 32 Stat. 775 (1903). The National Defense Act of 1916 required the title "National Guard." 39 Stat. 166 (1916). Further, National Guard soldiers were still state soldiers, or militia, at this time. Not until the National Defense Act of 1933 did they become both state soldiers in their state militia and a federal reserve force at the same time with the creation of the National Guard of the United States. 48 Stat. 153 (1933). Todd Gallagher (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Previously unsectioned comments

Is there no Navy National Guard? What is the difference in the National Guard and the Reserves? Are the National Guard units still state units requiring the state governor's permission to be federalized and work outside their state? --rmhermen

There is no Navy National Guard today for a variety of reasons: A) not every state has a coastline, whereas every state has land and airspace B)The Coast Guard serves most of the roles a naval militia would C) Naval forces are extremely expensive to maintain compared to land and air forces. Some states used to have state naval militias, maybe as recently as the early 20th century (don't recall). As for the difference between NG and Reserves, Reserves are always part of the Army, and answer to the President, even when inactive. National Guard units are underthe control of State governments and their Governors until federalized by the President, when they become part of the regular Army. The President does not need permission from anyone, much less the state governor, to federalize the State Guard, and it has happened many notable times, famously in Little Rock, AR in 1957 when Eisenhower federalized the National Guard and ordered them to return to their barracks to prevent them from interfering in the desegregation of the schools (see Little_Rock_Integration_Crisis). Once the National Guard is federalized, they do what the President tells them. --ThirtyOneKnots 19:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC) so national guard and state guard are different if it does not make sense please look in more wikipedia now let us countinue Hah I should have read down before answering :-X --ThirtyOneKnots 19:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I thought that the militia made up the majority of the forces throughout the Civil War, not just at the beginning. Can anyone confirm this? Rmhermen 22:47, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

First, there is no Naval National Guard because when Congress founded the Navy it was to be a Federal only force, and actually prohibited the states from maintaining any type of naval organization

Second, The National Guard is officially a state and a federal entity and can be actived by either/or, but with federal having precidence. When federally activated they can be deployed anywhere the President, in his role as Commander in Chief, says even without the approval of the state governor.

Third, The Reserves are a federal entity only activatable by the President. They hold no state responsibility whatsoever.

Fourth, Once on active duty the militias became subject to the sames rules and regulations as the army.

Fifth, The Militia Act was passed to rectify the many problems of the militias by providing identical training, recruiting standards, weapons and equipment to ensure their deployability in usage.

Sixth, The National Guard and Militia Act recognized two types of militias,

• (A)The organized, properly uniformed, and trained.
• (B)the unorganized or state/community level posse commitatus. Tomtom

Possession of Warships by the States is prohibited by Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Rdamurphy (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Some amusing misconceptions here, plus unsaid stuff.

1. The Posse Comitatus Act does apply to federalized NG forces. Not, however, to NG forces called up and under state command. This is how/why the NG gets used during, say, snowstorms and riots and so forth: They have the same arrest powers as, say, state troopers.

2. The Governor's permission is not required for NG troops to be federalized. Under state command, they can be sent out of state, but that (as a matter of courtesy at the least) requires the governor of the recieving state to ask first. I've never, however, heard of a case where such a request has not been immediately granted; Much as with mutual aid betweem fire and police departments and the like, it's in your own interest to do so, since it could be you asking next time.

3. Some states have 'Naval militias', which fall under the same org chart as the ARNG (Army National Guard) and ANG (Air National Guard), but aren't federally liable, assisted, or recognized. Mostly, these are to beef up port security, augment the US Coast Guard, etc.

4. Even in reserve status, the NG follows all active Army/AF regs. Sometimes they have their own besides, but not in place of, the active force regs.

5. It should be noted that 10 USC 311 defines the militia as every able-bodied male 17-45 and female members of the NG. (Verified at the Cornell US Code site) --Penta 18:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lower than it's ever been?

• Is whoever wrote that serious? Enlistment is currently lower than it was in, say, 1789? Gimme a break. -Kasreyn

---

I have no edit to make, as this is currently a good article, but to the (anonymous) person who made the worthwhile edits under the unfortunate header "How many National Guardsmen has Bush let die in Iraq?" I can only say "F*** you". Particularly since I am joining the Ohio National Guard and am not worried at all about Bush "letting me die in Iraq". Good edit, bulls*** POV "reason" for the edit. Jfiling 01:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

---

The various State Naval Militias are more the equivalent of the State Guard (which - in NY at least - has Army and Air Divisions), as opposed to being the Naval equivalent of, say, the Army National Guard or Air National Guard

== The NG chief does not sit on JCS == HE DOES NOW!!!

I deleted the line (in italics) that states "Both are maintained through the National Guard Bureau, whose Chief sits on the Joint Chiefs of Staff." This is inaccurate. The JCS is made up of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

All of these are 4 star Generals, while the NG chief is only a (3 star) Lieutenant General. See http://www.jcs.mil 68.111.236.53 05:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This section needs to be changed due to recent events. Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig McKinley has been nominated to become the first four-star leader of the National Guard Bureau (upon Congressional approval). He replaces General Blum who has been made Deputy Commander of NORTHCOM.

This in turn makes the National Guard under The National Guard Empowerment Act, a section of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act a separate and distinct defense activity, which in turn changes the oversight authority.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/07/military_nationalguard_mckinley_071608w/

Aruntoday (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC) so →→→→

♦♥♣♠₩₨£₰¡†#‘“““«฿$»”””’

I do not see the point you're making Aruntoday. I've read the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, now officially known as Pub.L. 110-181. While the Act promotes the Chief, National Guard Bureau to a four-star general, it still denies them a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for the National Guard is still officially represented by the Army and the Air Force, and not its own branch of service. The Act also states that the Chief, National Guard Bureau (CNGB) serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on matters involving non-federalized National Guard forces and on other matters as determined by the Secretary of Defense. The CNGB also serves as the the principal adviser to the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, on matters relating to the National Guard of the United States and its subcomponents; the Army National Guard of the United States, and the Air National Guard of the United States. The Chief, National Guard Bureau is not an advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Neovu79 (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is very subtle and does not leap out to the common solider or reader. The shift reflects changes in policy formation with the JCS/SecDef and budget policy as well a communication authority line to the Governors and TAGS. The shift is from "the new command structure elevates the role of the bureau chief as principal advisor on Guard issues to the defense secretary, the secretaries and chiefs of staff of the Army and Air Force, and the Joint Aruntoday (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just want to clear this up, because it changed again in 2012. The CNGB is a member of the JCS, and even in Sept 2008 he was an advisor to the CJCS. Consistent with SecDef responsibilities in Title 10 U.S.C., the 21 May 2008 version of the DoD Directive 5105.77, the National Guard Bureau charter, specified in section 3.1.2 that "The Chief, NGB, is a principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on matters involving non-federalized National Guard forces and through other DoD officials on matters as addressed herein, or as determined by the Secretary of Defense." So even back then, the CNGB did advise the CJCS on something.

The latest versions of the relevant documents, implemented by the 2012 NDAA (Public Law 112-81, Dec. 31 2011), section 512 added the Chief, National Guard Bureau to the list of JCS members in 10 USC §151(a) and changed the duties of the CNGB in 10 USC §10502 to include JCS membership. The latest version of the NGB charter, dated October 10, 2017, says in 5.c.(1) CNGB is "a principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense, through the CJCS, on matters involving non-federalized National Guard forces..." and in 5.d.(1)(d)1. that NGB itself has the function to "[support] force employment matters pertaining to homeland defense and defense support of civil authorities missions by advising the CJCS on the activities of the National Guard as they relate to those missions.".

I haven't looked through the text of the article yet to see how the information is presented there, but I will check and make sure it is accurate.

LeTouchre (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

References

US Nat'l Guard 369 years old (12/13/2005)

According to: http://www.oregonarmyguard.com/about_us.htm " The Army National Guard trace its roots to a time that predates our Declaration of Independence, a time that begins well before our Constitution declared us an independent nation. In 1636, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, groups of farmers, merchants and fishermen took up arms to defend their homesteads from native Americans intent on driving them back to England. These first organized militias carved forts from the forest, and defended the colonies from the Dutch and the French. One hundred and fifty years later, these same militia units were called upon to lead a Revolution, a war with a tyrant 3,000 miles away, a war that birthed a nation unlike any other – a nation where the common man could create his own destiny."

Could someone add this info to the article?

Hmm... "a war with a tyrant 3,000 miles away, a war that birthed a nation unlike any other(...)" Wasnt' England in 1776 a democracy based on parliamentary system of government? Offcurse the numbers of men with right to vote was smal - but in the US there was slaves with no voting rights...

Only U.S. military reserves?

The Army National Guard, the Air National Guard and the State Defense Forces are the only military reserves of the U.S.? --200.123.151.171 03:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is wrong. The Army National Guard (ARG), the Air National Guard (ANG), and the State Defense Force or not military reserves. The ARG, the ANG, and the States Defense Force are state organized militia. Under U.S. Code of law, State Defense Force cannot be called up as military force. The ARG and the ANG however, with the consent of their respective state governors, can be appointed as federally recognized military units of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States, which are reserve components of the Army and the Air Force. Also to anser you question, go to Reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States. Neovu79 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Reserve Component

The Reserve Component is made up of the following six organizations:

Army

The Army National Guard (ARNG)
The United States Army Reserve (USAR)

Navy

 The United States Naval Reserve http://www.navyreserve.com/?campaign=Reprise_YahooPI_Homepage_Homepage_Text

Air

 The Air National Guard (ANG)
 The Airforce Reserve http://www.afrc.af.mil/

Marine Corps

 The United States Marince Corps Reserve (USMCR)

Aruntoday (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Texas Air National Guard?

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask, but does anybody know why "Texas Air National Guard" redirects to this page, which has very little to do with the TANG?--Raguleader 22:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed that January 11th, there is now a Texas Air National Guard Page. --Colputt 16:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

National Guard and State Militia

RTO Trainer 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC) The article currently says:

Various State Militias also exist which are reserves to the National Guard and are collectively known as State Defense Forces. The State Militias, in some cases, pre-date the existence of the National Guard and are maintained on both an organized and unorganized level. The organized militia exists to supplement the National Guard in the event of manpower shortages while the unorganized militia comprises every able bodied male in a state which may be called up for extreme emergencies such as an invasion of the United States or a major catastrophe inside her shores. The last time that the unorganized state militias were activated was during the Civil War.

It would be mroe accurate thus:

Various State Militias also exist which are auxiliaries to the National Guard and are collectively known as State Defense Forces, prepared to augment and support state directed National Guard activities in the event of insufficient manpower. The State Militias, in some cases, pre-date the existence of the National Guard and are maintained on both an organized and unorganized level. Statutorilly however, the State Defense Forces were authorized by Congress in 1945 in recognition that some states had been left with only a token force at home, insufficient to handle local emergencies.

The organized militia is the National Guard in the event of manpower shortages while the unorganized militia comprises every able bodied male in a state which may be called up for extreme emergencies such as an invasion of the United States or a major catastrophe inside her shores (per 10 USC 311). The last time that the unorganized state militias were activated was during the Civil War.

--RTO Trainer 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but you'd need to cite your sources. In particular, I have beef with "State Defense Forces were authorized....in 1945"....various State Militia have been around since before the Constitution even existed. (Virginia comes to mind). Unless you can find a cite for that, it can't be included. As of now, I don't see any reason to change it.Oh, and Statutorilly isn't the proper spelling, nor grammar. It would be "By statute" ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Predating is alrady addressed. And the first Guard regiments trace their lineage to 1636 with the formation three regiments in Massachusetts. Smaller formations even earlier, especially if including Spanish militia organizations in Puerto Rico. How about: Various State Militias also exist which are auxiliaries to the National Guard and are collectively known as State Defense Forces, prepared to augment and support state directed National Guard activities in the event of insufficient manpower. The State Militias, in some cases, pre-date the existence of the National Guard and are maintained on both an organized and unorganized level. By statute however, the State Defense Forces were first authorized in their current form by Congress in 1954 (32 USC 109) in recognition that some states had been left with only a token force at home during both World Wars which was insufficient to handle local emergencies.RTO Trainer 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of Duties and Administrative Organization I feel a need to dispute the opening sentence regarding the Presidential authority to order National Guard troops into service. There appears to be little or no legal or Constitutional basis for that position. In fact the Constitution would appear to clearly delegate that power to the Congress (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15). The [presidential order] hyperlink provided does not provide any mention of Presidential authority to order Guard members into active duty. The closest I can find to such an authority is a provision in the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 5122), but I believe that only applies to a declared state of emergency and only to deploying troops within the United States. If there is some legal standing for the following statement, it should be supported in the document text or stricken.

Depends on what "into service" means. There are two Consitutional authorities under which the National Guard is called into service. Title 32 authority derives from Ar. 1, Sec. 8, Cl 15, which you cite (To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions). Title 10 authority derives instead from Ar. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 12 (To raise and support armies) and in fact Guard units cease to be "militia" when operating under Title 10, but revert back when Title 10 orders are rescinded or expire (32 USC 325). RTO Trainer 13:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

National Guard units can be mobilized at any time by presidential order to supplement regular armed forces, and ...

Gregreynoldsjr 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC) gregreynoldsjr

This statement appears to be repeated across numerous National Guard related wikipedia entries. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Army_National_Guard Under CA it states "The National Guard may be called into federal service in response to a call by the President or Congress." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_National_Guard. This should instead be stated as "When certain conditions are met, the National Guard may be called into federal service by the President or Congress."

Presidential limitations of authority to call up the National Guard is described under Title 10, Subtitle E, PART II, CHAPTER 1211, § 12406 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00012406----000-.html

Gregreynoldsjr 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The subjection of the Mobilization needs to be changed:

The role of the RC, as stated in section 10101, title 10, USC is to provide trained units and qualified persons available for active duty in time of war, national emergency, or when national security requires. Title 32 further states that ARNG units shall be ordered to Federal active duty and retained as long as necessary whenever Congress determines they are needed. The number of personnel and the duration of activation is determined by Congress and Department of Defense.

Aruntoday (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is half correct. 10 U.S.C. § 10101 and the Title 32 you're refering to, specifically 32 U.S.C. § 102, applies to the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States (reserve military), not the Air National Guard and Air National Guard (state militia). Neovu79 (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Style

Can someone go over to WP:MOS then come back here and look at the lead section... it is so long it seems as though there aren't going to be any sections in the article at all, then you get to the contents table!Garrie 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, tagged as {{Intro length}} for visibility — MrDolomite | Talk 07:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad intro

The intro doesn't explicitly state what the National Guard is. Or what their primary duty is, and how it is different from other military outfits. 67.77.245.12 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited Intro

I commented out three paragraphs (or was it four?) in the intro, and moved two paragraphs into their own subsection under "history" titled "war in iraq, war on terror", as these paragraphs explicitly cover that topic as regards the guard. Mtiffany71 20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing all the links to the state guard pages

Making the links go to only the Army Guard pages leaves out the Air Guard. If both Army and Air pages exsist for a state then the link should go to the State National Guard page for that state. Don't ya think? So I reverted the edits that were supposedly for consistancy, but effectively just blocked the Air Guard from being linked. --Colputt 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality

Sorry I wasn't clear on why I added the disputed neutrality tag at the time. Anyway the primary thing I think violates NPOV is the following line (in laws covering the national guard):

1. The Total Force Policy, 1973

Requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.)

I find the claim that making the national guard an integrated part of the standing US army furthers the original intent of the founding fathers to be suspicious. In particular many of the founding fathers quite clearly viewed the militia as an alternative and antidote against a standing national army. Further integrating the state forces into a standing national army seems like exactly the opposite of at least some of the founding father's intent. At the very least this passage seems to violate NPOV.

Also on a less important point I'm a bit suspicious of the section talking about the national guard being authorized by the constitution. It's not obvious to me at all that the national guard qualifies as a militia under the framer's conception that the militia is composed of most (all?) able bodied men armed with their private firearms. Rather than just stating this as a flat out fact it might be better to cite a supreme court case recognizing the national guard as the militia mentioned in the constitution.

That may have been the event back then however, A lot of things can change in the course of over 230 years. The United States hasn't been invaded by foreign forces since the Revolutionary War. There has been a need for "farmers" and their "private firearms." Secondly, we now have a permanent regular army which we did not back then. And lastly, the National Guard officers are officers who are home residence of (live in) that particular state that they're are in the service of, which is one of the few remaining similarities to colonial militia.

Now to your main concern, Title 32 gives the state governers direct control over their National Guard forces. The President can not supersede the state governors over state National Guard forces unless the President has the consent from them or unless the National Guard unit in that state has been federally recognized as a reserve miltary force, then the President does not need to get the censent from the governor for it was previous already given when the National Guard unit was federally recognized. Neovu79 (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally this may not be a NPOV issue but why is the second ammendment quoted with the operative part ("right to keep and bear arms") cut out. Logicnazi (aka TruePath) 06:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Section or statement tags would be more appropriate than a whole article header. I honestly don't believ your issues affect the entire article, so I've removed the header. I've tagged one of the statements with {{tl:POVassertion}}, but I'm not real sure what tags are best for the rest of your issues. The bottom of the Template:POV-section page has several section and statement tags that might fit. While I don't necessarily agree with where you're coming from on this, I do agree that such statements need clear attribution and sources, or else they should be changed to remove those parts. Also, the header has been there long enough without any discussion that you could just remove the offending statements if you wish. Two weeks is usually considered a good amount of time, and a month is more than long enough, especially without any intervening discussion here. - TomKat222 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Funding, Budget Process? How are NG expenditures decided?

This article is missing a very important, bottom-line part: who pays for the National Guard? Is it up to each individual State to decide how much to fund their Guard? (Once the troops are federalized, obviously, Uncle Sam pays.) No -- it mostly is allocated out of the general US Defense Budget. So how much goes to each State, and how is this decided? How big are the various States' NG budgets? Some quick googling suggests that "the federal government [...] provides virtually all of the National Guard's budget."[1] In that case, does this mean the Federal Government also dictates how those expenditures are allocated? In what aspects do States have leeway in allocating Guard expenditures and activities? Can States specify the areas and degree of training the Guard must receive? This all seems essential to understanding the US National Guard, and would be a big help to the article. DBrnstn 04:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The National Guard Defense Budget is approved via bill by Congress. Individual states do provide resources and funding to the NG in their states but the NG gets over 90% of their budget and expenditures from the federal government. Of course like all our tax dollars the government dictates where funding goes, and the NG and the states, like all other federal agencies, fight and lobby for a bigger share of the pie for themselves.

And lastly, states work with their NG Adjunct Generals to train NG personnel to fit the needs of the individual states but basic combat training is still provided by the Army and Air Force. Neovu79 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please specify what you wish to know about the budget process? I worked nine years at NGB/Pentagon in those areas. It inself is a very extensive process and could cover multiple topics. There are six Program Evaluation Groups (PEG) that the Army (Active, United States Army Reserve (USAR) and the Army National Guard belong to. They are as follows: TT - Training (OPTEMPO), SS - Sustaining, II - Installation, EE - Equiping, OO - Organizing and MM - Personnel. Source - Figure 9-6 of How the Army Runs

Aruntoday (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-National Guard members

people are listed as members of the National Guard before it was created. How can that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Legality of National Guard Mobilization

I added a "citation needed" tag to the following statement: "However, there has been a significant amount of individual activations to support ongoing military operations related to the Global War on Terrorism (beginning in 2001); the legality of this policy is a major issue within the National Guard." Based on information elsewhere in the article, it is plausible. When I searched for more information on the topic, however, I was not able to find corroborating evidence. EphraimGlass 05 August, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm cunfused on what the issue is. If the individual or units in the National Guard are already federally recognized as U.S. military force, then the President does not have to ask their respective state governors to call them up for active federal service. The President already has the governor's censent to call them up when the individual or units received appointments as federally recognized military. Federally recognized National Guardsmen are called up via 10 U.S.C. § 12302 not via 10 U.S.C. § 12406 of the U.S. Code of law. The latter U.S. Code applies to non-federally recognized National Gaurdsmen, in which case, the President would be required to seek and have the consent of their respective state governor to activate them. Neovu79 (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A possibility for rebellion??

State National Guard may also be called up for federal service, with the consent of state governors, to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or execute federal laws if the United States or any its states or territories are invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, or if there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the federal government, or if the President is unable with the regular armed forces to execute the laws of the United States [

Is it accurate to say that because presidential orders for NG activation come through the governor's office, therefore the governor must consent for the order to be valid? If so, this would mean that when activated for war, a state governor could legally deny the use of "his" troops for such an occasion. I'm thinking about a chain of command scenario. The CEO decide to use the grunts for a task, but instead of going directly to the grunts, he goes to the grunts' supervisor or manager. The supervisor can hardly deny the CEO what he's asking, assuming it's within his (CEO's)scope of authority in the first place. Isn't this also the case with the NG?Jlujan69 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In the above law, yes. However, when you're concerning war or national emergency, federal activation of state NG units via governor's consent, automatically transfers them temporarily to the National Guard of the United States, in other words involuntarily federally recognizing them. To answer your question, yes the governor can, if he or she deems necessary, deny the President the access of his or he state's nonfederalized NG troops. However, this authority can be circumvented by act of Congress or authorizing a conscription. You also have to keep in mind that a large number of state units are already federally recognized because in order to receive better assignments and move up the chain in their NG career, one must serve some time in federally recognized service. Also, this isn't necessarily like a business. The CEO and a supervisor or manager are most likely in the same company so the CEO has the authority via chain of command. The federal government while relatively connected are still different governing system, via seperation of power. States each have their of laws which can differentiate from state to state. Federal laws are structured the way they are so the President does not have dictatorship power over the people, which is a founding reason for our countries' freedom. Neovu79 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Little Rock Nine#Armed escort. I consider this discussion the equivalent of barracks lawyering (i.e. in the absence of qualified legal representation). If the President establishes the justification by Title 10, then the federalization occurs with notification in the form of "orders issued" through the Governor's office, not a request for a decision of approval from the Governor. --Born2flie (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true, but the governor can write a decenting opinion through the National Governor Association to Congress and/or the courts stating their disagreement with the federalization of his state's National Guard. From there, it will be up to the Congressional Oversite Commitee on Armed Services or the Courts to enforce checks and balances on the President's justification. Neovu79 (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The appeal process you describe does not exist in the section of Title 10 referring to federalization by the President. Nowhere in the section does it discuss a governor getting to approve or offer a dissenting opinion should the federalization meet one of the tests already mandated to prove the legality of the activation. --Born2flie (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not an appeal process. Title 10 does cover many if not all military laws, but it is not the only Title that governs our legal system. If you read carefully I said, "it is up to Congressional Oversite Commitee on Armed Services or the Courts to enforce checks and balances on the President's justification." Which means, by creation and enactment of law or by court order via legal process, checks and balances are made on the President. The use is Presidential power is one of the reasons why our current President receives the critisism that he does. Laws can be changed without the President approving them and there's nothing he can do about it if his veto gets overruled by majority vote of both houses of Congress. The last time I checked, the people of the United States live in a democracy not a dictatorship. Neovu79 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I find that I must immediately concede your noncombatant status in this discussion. Good luck with your endeavors. --Born2flie (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how my "noncombatant status" has anything to so with this subject, but to clear up any confussion, while I may have questions about the direction about the war in Iraq, I am one of the very few republicans in an area that is very dominately populated by democrats. I am for a strong military and have always supported our troops 100%. My discussion with you only points out that our country scrutinizes everything to protect our founding rights of freedom. My point does not give me a "noncombatant status" as you have stated. I believe the Iraqis should have the same freedoms that we enjoy now. Since we're now in this, we should finish the job however, this will most likely not happen for the citizens have the final say and in my area, they are definately anti-war. Neovu79 (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bush's record of service

The VERY brief sentence saying Bush's record of service was called into question during 2004's presidential campaign is very neutral, but perhaps it is not specific enough or clear enough. BillCJ recently removed both the sentence and the reference, most likely thinking that it had to do with whether Bush served at all. I think it is referring to how Bush got into the Guards via preferential treatment and whether he properly or honorably fulfilled all of his duties. Those specific questions are brought up in the cited CBS News reference. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant TO this article, and I'm sure it's covered to death elsewhere. Are you certain there were absolutely no questions whatsover regarding the services of other presidents listed? Do you even know? I don't, but even if there were questions, this is not the place to cover them. It's an overview article of the Guard as a whole. I also doubt that the Bush questions had any effect on how the NG/ANG 30 years after his service, as far as themm making any changes to the Guard service structure. If they did, then that would be relevant, and the issue could be covered in that context. Otherwise, it's undue weight and recentism. - BillCJ (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good reasons. Thanks for the response. If the CBS source can be expanded to say that preferential treatment was a longstanding component of how sons of VIPs were saved from active frontline duty then it would have relevancy to this article. Such an expansion would require a lot more research and a greater breadth of references. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think if the service records are being brought up for one, they should be brought up for all maybe on a page specifically for past Presidents service records

It isn't needed for all presidents, however; with most of them it wasn't a controversy.Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a controversy or not. This isn't the place for it, this is merely listing which Presidents have served, not their history of service.

That was the focus of the list, now it is a list plus an expansion. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This controversal statement does not belong in the National Guard of the United States article. While Bush's service record is dubious, he is still listed as serving in the Air National Guard regardless of him fulfilling his obligation. Such a statement does not directly pertain to the National Guard of the United States. Please place such a statement in the George W. Bush article. Neovu79 (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This pretty much sums up this atrocious article

WP:NOTSOAPBOX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.254.0 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts

It says the National GUard never leaves U.S. Soil, then it says that 28% of the personal in Iraq is Guard and Reserve personal. So whats up?--76.174.34.216 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the National Guard never leaves U.S. soil. However, when National Gaurd units are federally militarized, they become the National Guard of the United States, which is part of the U.S. miltary under the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force. National Guard of the United States forces can be deployed overseas since they are no longer under the authority of their respective states governors. Instead, they are under the authority of the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense until they are released from federal service. In which case, they revert back to just National Guard. Neovu79 (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to ask the same question and I'm afraid don't really understand the answer. They can't leave the United States unless they are "federally militaized". What does this eman exactly? Does it need an act of Congress declaring law, ora Presidential order, or what? Regards Jdorney (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What that means is, under the continuing Congressionally sanctioned national emergency, the President and/or the Secretary of Defense, through the National Command Authority, can call up state National Guard units for federal service instead of normal state service. This changes the status of that particular National Guard unit from militia to military, which the United States government officially refers to as armed forces. So to painly answer your question... Yes, the President or the Secretary of Defense can call up state National Guard units for federal service (not state service), which allows them to be deployed overseas. While under federal service they are officially refered to as the National Guard of the United States, and not National Guard. Neovu79 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now, thanks. This should be made clear in the article. One more question though. Is this optional for the National Guardsman him/herself? If I volunteered for militia service in my home state in support of the civil power and found myself re-classified as "military" without my consent and shipped off to Iraq, I'm not sure I'd be too pleased. Seems like a breach of terms and conditions even. Jdorney (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically no, by law under Title 10, Subtitle E, Part I, Chapter 1003, all state National Guard units and personnel are trained for availablity for active duty in the armed forces, in time of war or national emergency and at such other times as the national security may require, as well as to fill the needs of the armed forces whenever more units and persons are needed than are in the regular components. So if you were to enlist into the National Guard of your state, either via the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, you have to be aware that during our country's current state of national emergency, you can be involuntarily called up for federal service and deployed overseas. Now, if you want to serve your state in milita service without the risk or federal call-up, there is a second option; you can join your state's defense force. A State Defense Forces is a militia force and is regulated, equiped and trained via the National Guard. State Defense Force only falls under Title 32 of the United States Code, specifically 32 U.S.C. § 109, and not Title 10. This means members of a State Defence Force, can not be called up for federal service because they can not become a reserve component of the military, however, 32 U.S.C. § 109 also states that being a member of the States Defense Force does not exempt a person for military service. Meaning if the federal government were to enact a conscription, you of course could be drafted. Your states's defense force could also not stop you from voluntarily enlisting into your state's National Guard or the military. Neovu79 (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks. Jdorney (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Executive Order #13528 data removed

I just pulled out the entire section claiming that the powers changed in January 21. Reading the executive order, all it does is establish an advisory role of 10 governors. The powers that the President has over the National Guard, or the powers that state governors have over it, did not change, if I am reading it correctly. The measure only established an advisory "Council of Governors". Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-705.pdf --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Council of Governors bit has been re-added by someone. I think this should be reported as vandalism, as the Council of Governors does not have ANY bearing on the organization of the National Guard and is a presidential advisory council established under a law signed by George W. Bush. Of late, it has become a conspiracy theory darling of right wing activists in the US known as the "Tea Party". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.14.128.96 (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Developments after September 11, 2001

This section currently implies there were additional service demands on the Guard following the attacks but still prior to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which administration admitted had no substantive ties to those carrying out the attacks (and actually had been outlined in think tank white paper documents prior to the attacks). I sort of doubt there were real pre-invasion 9-11 demands, that seems like a fabrication after the fact, I think the Guard troops were mainly called up to beef up the Pentagon's manpower once the invasions themselves started gearing up. Can anyone comment? 76.121.104.255 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC).

Other notable members

I moved "John Allen Muhammad" from the Other noble members subsection to a sub-subsection for more than one reason. The definition of notable, as a notable fact or thing (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/notable), is considered obsolete, as opposed to the accepted definition of "a prominent, distinguished, or important person". Muhammad is considered infamous so I corrected this. On another note; I can see presidents listed but the subsection of "Other notable members" (not to mention infamous) probably is trivial. With only seven names listed (and one infamous) the list seems to be extremely short. Notable would include all articles of any person (notability is a criteria) on Wikipedia and it seems this probably would be a very long list. Otr500 (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

National Guard Mutiny

We've all read the stories about the National Guard being federalized to uphold federal directives in the face of state governments, mostly civil rights. I was curious if anyone knows of a case where the Guard was on the side of the governor, refused to be federalized, and/or turned on federal troops or even the people they were ordered to protect. Does anyone know? -OberRanks (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A related issue is that several state governors are refusing to allow their respective National Guard units to recognize same-sex spouses, even when the couples were legally married in another state (and are recognized by the federal government and the U.S. military) despite directives from the federal government to do so: http://news.yahoo.com/u-states-pentagon-clash-over-id-cards-same-031354277.html 98.218.23.114 (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A perfect example would be the American Civil War. Not only did he majority of state soldiers (militia) side with their respective states, but many federal commanding officers sided with the South. The commanding general of the US Army in Texas, David Twiggs, immediately surrendered all forces to the Confederacy, and then took a Confederate commission. Robert Lee was one of the officers under his command in San Antonio. He returned to Virginia as a federal officer but as soon as the war broke out, he resigned his commission and took one with Virginia. Todd Gallagher (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

Can someone find evidence of Babe Ruth being a Guard member? I'm finding none on his article and it doesn't fit with what I know of his career (orphanage in Baltimore to minor leagues to majors to retirement). 72.82.162.48 (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Babe Ruth Enlists in the National Guard. Private Babe Ruth. The 104th Field Artillery Regiment of the New York National Guard, 1916-1919. When Ruth was a member of the New York National Guard he used to attend annual summer encampments and present signed memorabilia to soldiers who reenlisted. He also appeared in advertisements for the National Guard -- you can find print ads featuring Ruth that were published well into the 1940s.

Billmckern (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National Guard of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629120829/http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.cb6e7818b34088d18a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=0a05e362c5f5d010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD to http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.cb6e7818b34088d18a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=0a05e362c5f5d010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140604154424/http://www.mahalo.com:80/john-bolton/ to http://www.mahalo.com/john-bolton

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Guard of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120119004915/http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-6602224.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-6602224.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Guard of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711052143/http://www.ngb.army.mil/resources/photo_gallery/presidential/index.htm to http://www.ngb.army.mil/resources/photo_gallery/presidential/index.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_12_21/ai_112350861/pg_3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Guard of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106133154/http://www.ng.mil/Images1/docs/Value_of_the_National_Guard.pdf to http://www.ng.mil/Images1/docs/Value_of_the_National_Guard.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722212113/http://www.ng.mil/news/archives/2011/03/030411-Casey.aspx to http://www.ng.mil/news/archives/2011/03/030411-Casey.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228191819/http://www.ngb.army.mil/ to http://www.ngb.army.mil/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427082454/http://www.ngb.army.mil/gallery/heritage/index.asp to http://www.ngb.army.mil/gallery/heritage/index.asp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Its me. A lot of links on these military articles are dead because they are obsolete and are no longer offered by the Guard or other organization. The military changes fast. If you put the link back from the archive you are giving the false impression that they are fine or that the article is fine. Bots are great but this is a limitation. If this were classics putting the link back from a classic would be a great benefit. Nothing classical here. Additionally, the original specification of the link was probably wrong. I plan to go over these and the article (slowly) so I will without doubt be changing the links. For example, you don't want a years-old NGB site, you want the latest they have! If this were Thucydides and you were going to lose an invaluable scholarly interpretation, then you sure would be thankful for the archived version.Botteville (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Agricultural Development Teams

Is a whole section (the largest one at that) under Organization really needed for Agricultural Development Teams? These represent a tiny function of the National Guard on a scale with Civil Support Teams and have little to do with the organization of the National Guard as a whole. I don't see how they rate anything other than a very brief mention. -- The above edit is from User talk:132.99.254.2 --18:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

These teams represent expertise, much like the expertise in a SFAB (security force assistance brigade), but an SFAB can be turned into a BCT with the addition of junior Soldiers and officers in a matter of months. You can bet that the expertise of an ag team or civil support team will be reused if the time comes. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Organization

It has been bothering me that I cannot seem to form a coherent and clear picture of the Guard from the mass of data presented. After some thought I have concluded that the problem is in the organization of the article. For example, in the Intro we start talking about the origin of the Guard. Then we promptly drop it. We pick it up again under Origins. Then we drop that. We pick it up finally under history. In each case we present no historical sources - books and such - and the material tends to be questionable and contradictory. Or again, we have two sections on the legal basis of the Guard, one on the Constitution and one on the history of the laws. There are a couple of sections on organization and activities. In short I am proposing a reorganization, which gathers like topics together, and presents those topics in a logical order. I will be back on talk later with an outline.Botteville (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Like the Army Reserve, the Guard is not a stand-alone organization. Both these components are part of the Army, once a Guard unit is federalized. State control becomes moot at that time. There are some guard division headquarters which were recently deployed to Southwest Asia, as 9 of the 10 active Army division headquarters were already being rotated in/out at the requests of the respective combatant commanders. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Ya, ya. Right at the moment I'm concerned with getting what is there in the right order. Then we can go over it. If this were a painting, we would be organizing the main blocks. Then we can do the detail. No, the Guard is not a stand-alone. Neither is Wikipedia. One of their strongest features is the network of links forming a matrix of articles. So, we never want to say too much about any one topic. We link to another article. Where to draw the line is often a difficult question. All blue links is no good either, you never actually say anything. Somewhere the blue link buck has to stop. Let me see if I can get this outline going. Then we move stuff around. Then we tend to each section, which is probably where you want to start. Too late, it's been started.Botteville (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

Paragraphs 1-3 fine

The name, National Guard

Organization of the Guard

Geographic organization ("Territorial organization")

ARNG and ANG

Federal-state duality

Two commands

The Guard as reserve (components of reserve)

Activation and mobilization

Active duty character

State and territory duty

Federal duty

National Guard Bureau

Legal basis of the Guard

Constitution and the Guard

Acts of Congress affecting the Guard ("Relevant laws")

History of the Guard

Origins

Colonial period

Revolutionary War period

Nineteenth century

Civil War period

Use in industrialization and labor unrest

20th century through the war in Vietnam

Post Vietnamese war period

Total Force concept

State Partnership Program

Agricultural Development Teams

Notable members

Number of Guardsmen

See also

references sections

External links

Here is a rough outline, more or less. I'll be working on a few other things for a short while and then I will be back to implement this arrangement, after which we can start to polish it.Botteville (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is readiness and fitness. If you look at photos of some of the commanders at state level, they would be inactivated out of the Active force right away, just based on the fitness standards of the active army. So then the question of Readiness of these units, the responsibility of the commanders, and the ability of the units to even meet the legal requirements for the job pops up. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Article states:

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109-364

Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States can now take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent.[45]

Two related footnote links are no good. One goes nowhere. The other (45) does not support the claim in the article, probably because the webpage has changed over time. Neither could I quickly find by searching the website any support for the article's claim. The word "now" is ambiguous. Does the editor mean now (April, 2018) or "now" as a historical present tense referring to 2007? Was the authority role of president later changed? Article needs revision here. BTW, IMHO editors should avoid the present tense mostly, since very soon the present tense is likely to become past tense & be wrong, like saying: "There are now 1000 cows in Chicago." Such a statement is bound to be wrong in just a little time. Thus IMHO one should write like: "There were 1000 cows in Chicago on April 18, 2018."(PeacePeace (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC))

Size of the National Guard

The toolbox at right says the National Guard's size is 348,156. The citation it gives is references the size of the Army National Guard only, which means it's about 100,000 short of the true number. The End Strength (number of persons assigned as of a particular date) changes every hour or so as soldiers and airmen enlist, retire, die, etc. Rather than use an End Strength, I suggest using the authorized end strength level as given in §411 of the latest National Defense Authorization Act; the NDAA only changes once a year and it is a reliable figure from a reliable source that can always be found. Latest is Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 115–91 (text) (PDF), 343,500 for ARNG + 106,600 for ANG equals 450,100 total for FY2018.

LeTouchre (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to "United States National Guard", therfore, moved to that title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

---

National Guard of the United States → National Guard (United States) – The National Guard does not use the title National Guard of the United States, they just use National Guard as seen on their official webpage. Using parentheses makes it conform with other National Guard articles that have respective countries that only use the term National Guard. Neovu79 (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comments - I need more information before submitting my decision. Actually, the web page you linked to appears to be the Army NG's recruiting site. This appears to be the National Guard Bureau's website, although it does only use "National Guard" in it title. Keep in mind that websites don't necessarily use official names, but can support common names. If "National Guard of the United States" is the official, legal title, it may be a better natural disambiguator than "National Guard (United States)", as there is no requirement anywhere in Wikipedia's naming conventions that requires conforming with the titles of other articles. It also raises the question of what is the difference between the "National Guard Bureau" and the "National Guard" in US law. There's a link on this page to Today (UTC−4) 10 USC §10503, which mentions ""National Guard Bureau", "Army National Guard", and "Air National Guard", but not "National Guard" by itself. This implies that there is no "National Guard" as a separate entity, but that may be incorrect. It also makes me wonder if the National Guard of the United States and National Guard Bureau articles should be merged, which would of course lead to the question of what the merged article should be titled. - BilCat (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comments - When I look at the laws covering the National Guard, I see it written and National Guard instead of National Guard of the United States. I look at 32 U.S.C. § 101 Definitions and subsection 3 states National Guard means the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. Subsections 5 through 7 does state the difference between Air National Guard vs. Air National Guard of the United States and the Army National Guard vs. the Army National Guard of the United States, but if I'm interpreting the definitions correctly, I think they are written there, only to distinguish within the Title only, as in referring to the Army and Air National Guard when trying to distinguish the separate authorities of the states vs federal. It can be a little confusing when reading the laws, but from all research I've done from their websites and talking to Guard members in the past, they only refer to themselves as Air or Army National Guard or as National Guard, when referring to both. Neovu79 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I would support the move as "National Guard" would be the obvious choice per commonname and the bracketed disambiguator "(United States)" is both standard and required as other national militaries also have a "National Guard". But as noted above, the extended title "... of the United States" is not just a natural disambiguator for Wikipedia purposes, but it is specially mentioned in US Code (federal law); "(5) "Army National Guard of the United States” means the reserve component of the Army all of whose members are members of the Army National Guard. Section (7) reads the same except for "Air NG" in place of "Army NG" and "Air Force" in place of "Army". As such, these should be specifically noted in the article, but expanded and clarified if possible (if not there already). Furthermore, after doing a quick check, it appears only a few articles use the bracketed disambiguator, such as National Guard (France), while other articles use the style currently adopted here, such as National Guard of Russia, while yet other articles use the national demonym first, such as Venezuelan National Guard. Perhaps before moving this article, there should be a more centralized discussion at wt:milhist about which format to use for these article titles. And considering the number of US States with "National Guard" articles, that should probably be included in the discussion as well. (jmho) - wolf 18:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Here's a good reference for the terminology: Perpich v. DoD. The National Guard and the National Guard of the United States are "two overlapping but distinct organizations." Basically, this is another annoying technicality like the distinction between United States Army and Army of the United States. "Since 1933 all persons who have enlisted in a State National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. In the latter capacity they became a part of the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the Army, but unless and until ordered to active duty in the Army, they retained their status as members of a separate State Guard unit." I could go either way on the title. Since the current article is written from a federal perspective, I might stick to "National Guard of the United States." If you think there is sufficient emphasis on non-federalized state activities like disaster relief, then "National Guard (United States)" has a broader scope. (Also, I wouldn't merge this article with National Guard Bureau, which is just the federal headquarters organization.) - Morinao (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The case seems to me as the courts referring the National Guard as the National Guard of the United States only to distinguish when the service member is in active service for the federal government, because further down in that brief, they refer to the National Guard as the National Guard of the several States, which leads me to believe that they are referring when the National Guard service member is in active service for the state government. Neovu79 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support I have read the comments above and understand it from the legal stand point. However as this page will inform you that other nations also have their own National Guard units/branches, hence I am in favour of the move.--Politicoindian (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but have alternate proposal to consider I think that this move is well thought out. I did some digging, and it seems that "National Guard of the United States" hasn't been legally used since the Army and Air Guard split in 1947 (with some holdovers, such as the National Guard Association of the United States. While I agree with the proposal, I would also like to introduce for consideration "United States National Guard", which is used on a number of DoD and other reliable source pages, including (https://dod.defense.gov/About/Military-Departments/Uniformed-Services/?page=National%20Guard) (https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/dec13/national-guard-founded/) (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/national-guard-trump-children-immigration.html).
• Move to United States National Guard. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support United States National Guard per NATURAL. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support United States National Guard per NATURAL. - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support United States National Guard works for me. Neovu79 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article is hopelessly inaccurate and should not be relied upon.

The issue of the National Guard was front and center in the 1970s, when a number of historians took on the propaganda that appears to be the basis for this article. The National Guard was formed AFTER the Civil War to control the Confederate Troops still harassing blacks. That effort had nothing to do with anything before the Civil War, it had no ties to any militia, in fact, the Southern governors complained the Militia was the problem, and they could not raise arms from the returning soldiers who were the alleged cause of the violence in the first place. Here the Left has attempted to neutralize the claim to the militia by Citizens by installing a regular federal army on top of the militia and then claiming that the militia is bound by their creation to the beginning of its existence - hundreds of years before.

With apologies to those serving in the Guard, this legacy is both inaccurate and devious. It was a ploy to destroy the Second Amendment and was first presented by Socialists and Communists inside the U.S.A. It is a good example of what the domestic enemies of the People of the United States use as leverage to misguide public opinion.

Recent Federal Laws cannot change history. This material became a platform for fake news. Layering federal law on top of existing fact did not and does not change the actual history of the National Guard.

The Militia in the United States was intended to challenge the Federal Government if it failed to observe the restraints embodied in the Constitution, which was the actual purpose of that document. "Well Regulated" meant well equipped in 1789 and was widely used to describe Napolean's Army. The information presented here is counterfeit and should be completely rewritten. Fortunately, the issue was so hotly debated 50 years ago that most of the real evidence has been preserved and we need not rely on propaganda.

This propaganda began when the Left tried to marshall an argument that the Bill of Rights applied to the States, not the People. It was quickly pointed out that the history of the Bill of Rights was in direct conflict with that position, and the courts concurred. It is my recommendation that Wikipedia publish a disclaimer that this material is challenged as highly inaccurate, and once the actual information is exposed to the public, the Guard's reputation will be tarnished; in fact, we did that quite well 50 years ago. - Leonard J. Umina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.167.181 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is source of information with a WP:NEUTRAL point-of-view and welcomes information so long as it is properly WP:SOURCED as much as possible. WP:BIASED opinions as the dissertation you just wrote is often frowned upon but is permitted so long as there is justification and proper sourcing without the use of WP:ORIGINAL research. If you would like to make constructive additions to this article, you are more than welcome to do so, but I would ask that you refrain from adding your own WP:OPINIONS to it, without adding some equal or opposite balance. This will prevent other users from WP:REVERTING your edit, as it may appear such edits could be perceived as a WP:CONFLICT of interest and not out of WP:GOODFAITH. Neovu79 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)