“When one person can initiate war, by its definition, a republic no longer exists” — Ron Paul
Legislation currently before the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs would prohibit the Massachusetts National Guard from being deployed into “active duty combat” unless Congress issues a declaration of war or calls the Guard into service for one of three constitutionally-authorized purposes.
Senate bill S. 2471 and a companion in the House, H. 3829, are the first of their kind to be introduced in the state. If enacted, the law would be a critical bulwark against the executive branch, which as James Madison warned, “is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it.”
Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet, since 1942 and after decades of undeclared, aggressive military interventions and invasions — including every war of this century in the “Global War on Terrorism” — the legislative branch has continually abdicated its responsibility of deciding to change the state of the nation from peace to war.
Furthermore, Clause 15, as one of the clauses governing today’s National Guard, delegates to Congress the power of “calling forth the Militia” in three situations — to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, or repel invasions. Yet Guard troops have played significant and extended roles in overseas conflicts, particularly since 9/11, with more than 1.1 million overseas deployments. Military.com reports that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.”
Since 2001, virtually all Massachusetts Army National Guard units and most of its soldiers have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, with several units and many soldiers having served twice or more. And this past year has been their highest operations tempo since 2010, with deployments to Europe and in permanent rotation to the Horn of Africa (where the U.S has been launching airstrikes all year).
Notably, at their Worcester sendoff to Poland in April, Major General Keefe, adjutant general, declared that their mission was to “make sure Russia goes no further.” The reality is that all of these missions are absent any approval or consultation of state legislatures, and all contradict the constitutional intent of state control over their militias. Nor have we declared war on Russia.
Aside from the obvious constitutional arguments, this legislation directly supports and protects reservists and their families. As detailed in the 2023 multipart series by The War Horse, perpetual deployments of Guard members from Massachusetts have taken a heavy and tragic toll in the months and years following their service. Testifying at a hearing of the Joint Committee earlier this year, Senator Ryan Fattman related that no fewer than 5 of the soldiers under his brother’s command had committed suicide upon their return.
Protects the National Guard for Domestic Use
Our guardsmen and women are needed for disaster relief, emergency response, and local security. Whether it’s battling floods along our coast, responding to nor’ easters, or even mitigating a school bus driver shortage, deploying them to overseas conflicts only depletes state resources and weakens domestic preparedness.
Strengthens Oversight & Accountability
Transparency and accountability in military decision-making are key requisites to a representative democracy and constitutional republic. By requiring a congressional declaration of war, Defend the Guard legislation increases oversight of foreign military engagements.
Reduces Military-Industrial Influence
There is deep and corrosive influence among defense contractors and the military-industrial complex in shaping U.S. foreign policy, from Lockheed Martin to Raytheon (established in Massachusetts in 1922) and all the other big players in the war racket. Enacting these bills across the country, now introduced in more than 30 states, would ensure that military action is driven by actual necessity, not corporate interests.
Restores Constitutional Balance
Passing Defend the Guard legislation would ban the state from helping Congress and the Executive branch violate their duties to uphold the Constitution. For far too long, Congress has allowed presidents to wield unilateral war powers with virtually no oversight. While enacting it into law will face the typical opposition from the establishment, it certainly is, as Massachusetts’ own Daniel Webster once noted, “one of the reasons state governments even exist.”
As the nation’s first, it’s only fitting we return our Guard to its original purpose and purview, when its fighters’ first loyalty lay with their local communities, and where their lives were not wasted on fighting the undeclared forever wars of DC.
To make your voice heard: Defend the Guard: Massachusetts | Tracking and Action Center.