Only if the U.S. Congress declares war can our National Guard be sent to fight abroad

The principle enshrined in the Constitution is that our National Guard can only be sent to fight abroad if the United States Congress declares war.
But as Congress abdicates its solemn responsibility, the process of involving the National Guard in foreign wars has become a unilateral presidential decree.
This phenomenon must change.

 

Over these last twenty years,the men and women of the fifty state national guards have accounted for nearly half of the active duty troops in Washington,D.C.'s undeclared forever wars in the Middle East.The Constitution requires Congress to declare war before sending our guardsmen into foreign battlefields.Since the federal politicians won't do their jobs,it is past time for state legislatures to do theirs by defending the guard and bringing our men and women in uniform home to their families.

 

We've sent National Guard units to every war, something like 6 divisions in WW I alone, iirc. It's a simply matter to induct them into active military units and send the over. Don't recall any refusing to go. Maybe you're just not interpreting the clauses correctly. Ideologues pretty much have to read stuff in that isn't there.

So how do state governors fit into your claim here? If the state runs the Guards, then what stops a Governor from assigning them to the Federal Govt.? Where do you think Washington got the troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion with?

 

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war. Clearly, our Founders wanted the decision to go to war to be in the hands of the Congress, not the President who is just one single person. But the Constitution does not specify how the Congress shall declare war. And so the Constitution leaves it up to the Congress to "declare war" in a manner of their choosing, and they may call such declaration anything they want.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress passed a formal "Declaration of War."

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, Congress "declared war" on Iraq, this time calling the declaration an Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).

After 9/11, Congress passed an AUMF against Al Qaeda.

Congress also passed an AUMF against Iraq in 2003.

These AUMF's were passed by a vote of both Houses of Congress, fulfilling the duty of Congress to make the decision to go to war. They were effectively "declarations of war" that were simply named something else.

 

We can see what the Constitution says on the matter:

Article I, Section 8
clause 15. [The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
clause 16. [The Congress shall have Power] 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.

Article II, Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States​

The Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795 gave authority to the president to call out militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".
This law, which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held by the Supreme Court to be constitutional. Martin v. Mott (1827)

 

Actually, you have that very much backwards.

Way back in 1801, Congress requested that President Jefferson send US Naval Forces to fight the Barbary Pirates, he balked. Saying that only Congress had that power, he as President did not. That id they wanted forces sent, they had to authorize a declaration of war. And the response of Congress was that a Declaration of War was not needed for minor conflicts, only major ones that involved a threat to the nation as a whole. And that as is job as Commander in Chief, he did indeed have the right to authorize smaller actions and did not require Congress to approve of them.

This eventually became what was know as the "War Powers Act", but it was actually established way back in 1801, 223 years ago. When Congress itself told the President he was free to authorize military action if needed, that he simply had to inform them that they were doing so.

 

Hell, over half of the manpower of the US Army in WWII was National Guard. Most of the major training camps built for the war were actually National Guard camps, and training soldiers in the National Guard. That is a big reason why demobilization after the war ended was so fast. The Guardsmen were sent home and let go, those that were actually in the Army itself are the ones that found themselves doing occupation duty.

And that is one advantage of the Guard in a major conflict like that. It is actually much more flexible when it comes to manpower requirements. My local VA center sits on what during WWII was Camp White, a National Guard Training Base for Oregon that provided basic and infantry training to over 100,000 soldiers between 1942-1946. And I did a lot of training at Camp Roberts, a similar camp still in use to this day by the California National Guard.