Mississippi Should Pass a “Defend the Guard” Act
Most Mississippians assume that if our sons and daughters are sent into war, Congress has done its job—debated the issue and voted to declare it. That’s what the Constitution requires. But for more than 20 years, presidents have started and expanded wars first while Congress mostly watches from the sidelines.
A Mississippi Defend the Guard Act would say: no more.
What it would do:
Mississippi’s National Guard could not be deployed into active-duty combat unless Congress has (1) issued a formal declaration of war, or (2) lawfully called forth the militia for the Constitution’s narrow purposes—executing federal laws, repelling an invasion, or suppressing an insurrection. If Washington wants Mississippi citizen-soldiers fighting overseas, Congress must follow the Constitution it swore to uphold.
What it would not do:
It would not touch normal cooperation with federal authorities, training missions, disaster response, border or homeland security tasks under Title 32 within the United States and its territories, or other noncombat support. It would preserve the Governor’s authority to consent to domestic use of the Guard under Title 32.
This is not isolationism. It’s accountability.
The men and women of the Mississippi National Guard are our neighbors, coworkers, and family. They volunteer to defend this nation and do it with honor. The bare minimum we owe them is a clear, constitutional decision before they are ordered into harm’s way overseas.
Since World War II, Congress hasn’t issued a formal declaration of war. Yet Guard units have served in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere under broad “Authorizations for Use of Military Force” that get stretched across decades and continents. That’s a far cry from the Founders’ design that the people’s representatives decide when we go to war.
A Mississippi Defend the Guard Act restores that balance. It doesn’t tell Congress whether to approve any particular conflict. It simply insists that if Mississippians are to fight and bleed under federal command in combat, Congress must debate, vote, and own that decision. That’s how a free republic is supposed to work.
From a liberty perspective, this matters. War is the health of big government: it justifies surveillance, debt, secret law, and emergency powers that outlive the crisis. Making undeclared, open-ended wars harder to wage also makes it harder for Washington to erode civil liberties at home—and it respects the sovereignty of our state.
Mississippi Model — Key Clauses to Copy
Deployment rule: “No member of the Mississippi National Guard shall be released from state control into active-duty combat unless the United States Congress has (a) enacted a formal Declaration of War pursuant to Article I, Section 8, or (b) lawfully called forth the militia to execute the laws, repel an invasion, or suppress an insurrection pursuant to Article I, Section 8 and Article II.”
Definition (active-duty combat): “Participation in armed conflict; hazardous service in a foreign nation or foreign waters; or duties involving an instrumentality of war in a combat zone.”
Exclusions: “This Act does not restrict training, readiness activities, disaster relief, domestic support missions under Title 32, or noncombat support that does not meet the definition above.”
Governor authority: “Nothing in this Act limits the Governor’s authority to consent to federal use of the Guard under Title 32 for domestic missions.”
Construction: “This Act shall be construed to protect constitutional war-powers requirements and the safety of Mississippi service members; it shall not impede routine federal-state cooperation.”
Severability & effective date: Standard clauses so one section being challenged doesn’t sink the whole Act.
What should happen next:
Lawmakers should file and pass a Mississippi Defend the Guard Act. Citizens should demand they do so. Call your senator and representative and ask a simple question: Will you insist that Congress follow the Constitution before sending Mississippi’s Guard into foreign combat?
How would this act affect federal funding the guard realize on to make ends meet? We know our guard is consistently underfunded from the state coffers. This act would need to address funding retaliation by the feds.
I was always under the impression that it was the Governor of the state sending the Guard into the various wars because the state got some sort of extra funding from the Federal Government.