Jennifer Elsea
LightNews LightNews
banner
jnklz.bsky.social
Jennifer Elsea
@jnklz.bsky.social
5.8K followers 290 following 1.3K posts
Legislative attorney at CRS. NatSec, IHL, international law, etc. Army Intelligence officer in previous life. Opinions mine. No skeets from this account are attributable to CRS.
Posts Replies Media Videos
jnklz.bsky.social
Oops, I misremembered. Not the next section, in the same section but modifying the next sec of the Dick Act.
Sec. 3. That section four of said Act as amended be, and the same is hereby, amended and reenacted so as to read as follows: "Sec. 4. That whenever the United States is invaded or in danger of invasion from any foreign nation, or of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States, or the President is unable with the regular forees at his command to execute the laws of the Union, it shall be lawful for the President to call forth such number of the militia of the State or of the States or Territories or of the District of Columbia as he may deem necessary to repel such invasion, suppress such rebellion, or to enable him to execute such laws, and to issue his orders for that purpose, through the governor of the respective State or Territory, or through the commanding general of the militia of the District of Columbia, from which State, Territory, or District such troops may be called, to such officers of the militia as he may think proper." proper. SEc. 4. That section five of said Act as amended be, and the same is hereby, amended and reenacted so as to read as follows: "SEc. 5. That whenever the President calls forth the organized militia of any State, Territory, or of the District of Columbia, …he may specify in his call the period for which such service is required, and the militia so called shall continue to serve during the term so specified, either within or without the territory of the United States, unless sooner relieved by order of the President: Provided, That no commissioned officer or enlisted man of the organized militia shall be held to service beyond the term of his existing commission or enlistment: Provided further, That when the military needs of the Federal Government arising from the necessity to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, SIXTIETH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Сн. 204. 1908. Or repel invasions, can not be met by the regular forces, the organized militia shall be called called into service of the United States in advance of of any volunteer force which it may be determined to raise."
November 11, 2025 at 5:20 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Oh, hey! From my late husband, a reinforcement! (I knew I kept this thing around for some reason. Mostly because it made my mom laugh,)
Wooden statuette of the bird.
November 8, 2025 at 4:13 AM
jnklz.bsky.social
My walls are pretty old, so probably uneven. So I always got bleed onto the ceiling. And there was this problem unrelated to tape.
Paw prints in “Dragon’s Blood Red” by Benjamin Moore.
November 2, 2025 at 11:37 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Here’s the outside. Replica version that is displayed at the Botanical Gardens annual Christmas Train show.
DC townhouse replica using atrial materials by Botanical Gardens.
November 2, 2025 at 11:20 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Of course, but
A bottle of Bitburger Pils
October 31, 2025 at 10:45 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
the same as § 3. I figure if anyone would have flagged the difference, it would have been AG Stanbery.

If anyone is aware of any historical discussion of this issue, please share!
It is impossible to imagine a case in which the construction from laws in pari materia has a more cogent application; for it is evident here that the law-maker, in framing the disqualifications of the voter, took special cognizance of the third section of the amendment, and weighed it word by word, following it literally for the most part, and rejecting deliberately the very word intended to embrace a military officer. Accordingly we find, when that was the purpose, as we see it was in the third section of the constitutional amendment known as article XIV, Congress expressed that purpose very clearly. That section provides that "no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Thie third section is expressly referred to more than once in these acts. It is made, in fact, a part of these acts. Its lunguage is followed, word for word, in these disqualifying clauses, as far as was possible, except in the particular in which one is made to apply to eligibility and the other to the right to vote.
October 31, 2025 at 2:42 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Wait a damn minute. I have it on good authority this is a word.
FLOOF
October 25, 2025 at 4:10 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Seemingly out of nowhere. But if we’re looking for a definition close to time to enactment, § 4 of the KKK Act of 1871 provides a pretty specific one:
Sec. 4. That whenever in any State or part of a State the unlawful ful combiuations combinations named in the preceding section of this act shall be organized and armed, and so numerous and powerful as to be able, by violence, to either overthrow or set at defiance the constituted authorities of the United States. of such State, and of the United States within such State, or when the constituted authorities are in complicity with, or shall connive at the unlawful purposes of, such powerful and armed combinations; and whenever, by reason of either or all of the causes aforesaid, the conviction of such offenders and the preservation of the public safety shall become in such district impracticable, in every such case such combinations shall be deemed a rebellion against the government of the United limits of the district which shall be so under the sway thereof, such limits to be prescribed by proclamation, it shall be lawful for the President, when in his judgment the public safety shall require -it, to suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus …
October 23, 2025 at 8:45 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
I was looking for a specific memo William Rehnquist wrote to John Ehrlichman about using the National Guard as strike-breakers during the 1970 postal strike. I did eventually find it, in case anyone is interested.
MONORANDURE TO, HONORABLE JOIN D. EHRLICHMAN Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs I enclose two instruments prepared for the President's signature, for the purposes hereafter indicated: (a) Executive Order "Calling Into Service Mambers and Units of the National. Guard" is for the puspose of permitting the President or his delegate to call into Federal service members of the Army and Air National Guard, in accordance with the provisions of 10 u.s.C. §3500 and 10 U.S.C. §8500 The basis for lnvoking those scctions is the provision of the former section authorizing tbe President to federalize members or units of the Guard whenever "the President is unable with the rogular forces to execute the laws of the United States," The Executive Order utilizes the applicable provisions of law dealing with the functions of the Post Office Department, which impose an obligation on that. Department: to process and deliver mail. at reguler intorvals, and to perform other postal fuuctions, I have been unable to locate any square procodent for the uee of 10 u.s.c.• §3500 to authorize the Guard to actually perform a Federal function, rather then simply guard or protect others who are performing that function, but the statutory lenguage Is broad enough so that a reasoned argument may be made in support of such use. (b) Proclamation"Declaring A National Enegency" is for use under the authority conferred on the President by 10 U.S.C. §673, which authorizes"an authority designated by tlie Secretary concerned to call up members and units of the Ready Reserve in the event of a national emergency "declared by the President aftor January 1, 1953.* The statutory date prevents reliance upon President Truman’s Proclamation of national emergency in connection with the Korean War, even though that Proclamation is still in effect. the Proclamation recites the adverse effects of the postal strike, including the halting of the processing of men into the Armed Forces, the fallure to receive tor collections, the failure to tranemit Social Security and welfare chocks, and the halting of private commercial trans-actions; in the light of all these facts, it is my opinion that the Preidone can justifiably conclude that there is e "national energensy" within the language of 10 U.s.C §673. William H. Rebnquist: Assistant Attorney General
October 22, 2025 at 2:38 AM
jnklz.bsky.social
Is it possible to turn off AI assistance for searches and just get sites that, y’know, contain the search terms you enter, without commenting that you must be a total idiot for entering them? I long for Back Then.
Google ehrlichman rehnquist postal strike Al Mode • Al Overview The query appears to be a conflation of the 1970 U.S. postal strike and a 2024/2025 Canadian postal strike, with the names "Ehrlichman" and "Rehnquist" being associated with the former. While President Nixon's administration had officials like John Ehrlichman and William Rehnquist, their specific roles in the 1970 strike were primarily related to the administration's response to the labor action, not the strike's direct cause or immediate events. The 1970 strike was a wildcat strike that crippled the U.S. mail system and led to significant gains for postal workers, including a large pay increase and new collective bargaining rights. O
October 22, 2025 at 2:38 AM
jnklz.bsky.social
Here’s the “concept” for Operation Graphic Hand, which demonstrates active components were to be deployed prior to determining whether these “regular forces” sufficed. It would not have made sense to interpret “regular forces” as a reference to postal workers, who were already on strike by then.
JIT (S) EXECUTION a. Concept: When directed by the President, the Secretary of the Army, through appropriate military commanders, will employ Federal Forces to augment the US Postal Department on a phased basis, as required, with the assets necessary to reestablish and maintain essential postal service for such length of time as may be necessary. Active components of all services will be employed as necessary and appropriate. Units and individuals of the National Guard may be called into Federal Service if the President determines he is unable to execute the laws of the U.S. with the regular forces (10 U.S.C. 3500). Units and individuals of the USAR may be ordered to extended active duty involuntarily only after a declaration of national emergency by the President or Congress (10 U.S.C. 672,673). The existing chain of command through CG, CONARC will be employed.
October 20, 2025 at 10:11 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Here’s a 1917 JAG opinion (digested version) on using the Dick Act to use the Guard to remove obstructions to mail delivery.
Held, That when interference with the channels of postal, commercial, and military communication, or with other instrumentalitles of the Federal Govern-ment, is apprehended. the President has power to call forth the militia 1o fore stall such interference. This power is a concomitant of his constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The method for its exercise is prescribed in section 3, act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. 400), which authorizes the President to call forth such number of the militia as he may deem necessary to execute the laws, subject only to the condition that the avallable regular forces be employed for this purpose before recourse is had to the militia. 58-100, Mar. 19, 1917.
October 18, 2025 at 12:40 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Yes. I think it can be agreed that Congress normally uses the same term consistently. Check out the section in the 1908 amendment after the amendment to § 4 of the Dick Act:
"SEc. . That whenever the President calls forth the organized militia of any State, Territory, or of the District of Columbia, to be employed in the service of the United States, he may specify in his call the period for which such service is required, and the militia so called shall continue to serve during the term so specified, either within or without the territory of the United States, unless sooner relieved Provided, That no commissioned officer or Restriction on time of service. enlisted man of the organized militia shall be held to service beyond the term of his existing commission or enlistment: Provided further, That when the military needs of the Federal Government arising from the necessity to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion, can not be met by the regular forces, the organized militia shall be called into the service of the United States in advance of any volunteer force which it may be determined to raise."
October 18, 2025 at 7:43 AM
jnklz.bsky.social
The legislative history makes fairly clear that “regular forces” means what it always has: the active duty military, but no one has questioned the govt’s reading that it just means whoever is regularly in charge of a duty. Here’s Teddy Roosevelt asking for legislation that became the Dick Act:
1o "Action should be taken in reference to the militia and to the raising of volunteer forces. Our militia law is obsolete and worthless. The organization and armament of the National Guard of the several States, which are treated as militia in the appropriations by the Congress, should be made identical with those provided for the regular forces. The obligations and duties of the Guard in time of war should be carefully defined, and a system established by law under which the method of procedure of raising volunteer forces should be prescribed in advance. It is utterly impossible in the excitement and haste of impending war to do this satisfactorily if the arrangements have not been made long beforehand. Provision should be made for utilizing in the first volunteer organizations called out the training of those citizens who have already had experience under arms, and especially for the selection in advance of the officers of any force which may be raised; for careful selection of the kind necessary is impossible after the outbreak of war." First Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1901, 14 Messages and Papers of the Presidents 6672.
October 18, 2025 at 5:43 AM
jnklz.bsky.social
In particular, the authority to call forth the militia in the event of invasions went to RS § 1642, in the title governing the militia, while the calling forth of militia in the event of insurrection against a state went to RS § 5297, in the title on Insurrection. Here they are:
SEc. 1642. Whenever the United States are invaded, or are in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, or in case of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States, it shall be lawful for the President to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States, most convenient to the place of danger, or the place of danger. or scene of action, as he may deem necessary to repel such invasion, suppress such rebellion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officers of the militia as he may think proper. SEC. 5297. In case of an insurrection in any State against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President, on application of the legislature of such State, or of the executive, when the legislature cannot be convened, to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or states, which may be applied for, or … to employ … such part of the land or naval forces … as he deems necessary.
October 12, 2025 at 6:19 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Fun fact: Insurrection Act. The Act of Feb. 28, 1795 was the first permanent provision permitting the president to call forth the militia. By 1873, when all statutes in force were codified into the Revised Statutes, section one was split up:
Revised statutes table showing section one split into two sections destined for the title for the Militia and one for the Insurrection title
October 12, 2025 at 6:19 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Yep, the gov brief cites all of the pages describing invocations of the IA and is presuming all situations amount to rebellion. I never said that. Here’s a footnote from the same report
40 Calling Forth Act of 1792, ch. 28, § 1, 1 Stat. 264 (repealed 1795 and current version now codified at 10 U.S.C. § 251 (2018)). It is unclear why Congress limited the ability of states to request assistance to circumstances of insurrection rather than "domestic violence" as permitted in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. Perhaps "domestic violence" was interpreted to be restricted to violence of a sufficient magnitude to constitute an insurrection, or the word "insurrection" was meant to convey armed violence that did not amount to a rebellion or revolution seeking to overthrow the government in part or all of a state. See RICH, supra note 37, at 21 n. 1 (citing definition of insurrection as including resistance to government authority smaller in scope and purpose than those described by the terms "rebellion" and "revolution"). The guarantee of a "republican form of government" would seem to require federal intervention in the event of a rebellion against a state government even without its request.
October 10, 2025 at 11:00 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
There’s also this, the prez’s “right” to deploy troops doesn’t end just because the exigency is over.
"If you don't hit it within a narrow window you lose your right — that just seems unnaturally constrained," complained Nelson in response to Chaffin's arguments that the most intense protests in Portland happened back in June and July, months before the late September mobilization. He added that Trump's sending in of other federal officers "hasn't abated it," that there's "still violence going on," despite the district court's finding that there is no current significant unrest.
October 9, 2025 at 8:07 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
So the prez has a “right” to respond to activity that is no longer ongoing, not a *responsibility* to restore order when actually necessary?
"If you don't hit it within a narrow window you lose your right — that just seems unnaturally constrained," complained Nelson in response to Chaffin's arguments that the most intense protests in Portland happened back in June and July, months before the late September mobilization. He added that Trump's sending in of other federal officers "hasn't abated it," that there's "still violence going on," despite the district court's finding that there is no current significant unrest.
October 9, 2025 at 7:41 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
NG called into federal service as the organized militia should not be considered just like any other soldier for duty purposes. The President is their Commander in Chief just the same, but their service is more limited to the constitutional purposes. The Court recognized the separate status.
∞ See Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366, 382-389 (1918); Cox v. Wood, 247 U. S. 3, 6 (1918). « Congress has by distinct statutes provided for activating the National Guard of the United States and for calling forth the militia, including the National Guards of the various States. See 10 U.S. C. §§ 672-675 (au-thorizing executive officials to order reserve forces, including the National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States, to active duty); 10 U. S. C. §§331-333 (authorizing executive officials to call forth the militia of the States); 10 U. S. C. §§ 3500, 8500 (au-thorizing executive officials to call forth the National Guards of the various States). When the National Guard units of the States are called forth, the orders "shall be issued through the governors of the States." § 3500.
October 9, 2025 at 3:54 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
The government again conflates the status of the National Guard of the United States with the National Guard as the organized militia. NGUS is a reserve component of the armed forces. Perpich was about members *ordered* (not called) into active service of the NGUS.
the federalized troops could be deployed. This makes sense because the deployment decision is firmly committed to the President's discretion. As explained above, the National Guard is composed of both the State National Guard, under the command of the several States, and the National Guard of the United States, a federal entity under the federal chain of command, see 10 U.S.C. § 10101. Once called into federal service, "members of the National Guard... lose their status as members of the state militia during their period of active duty," Perpich, 496 U.S. at 347, and become federal soldiers, who serve under the President as Commander in Chief, see U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. It is in that status—i.e, as federal soldiers— that the Texas National Guard members are being deployed to Illinois. On that issue, the statute imposes no geographic limitation. If anything, the statute merely confers broad discretion on the President, authorizing him to call up the Guardsmen in "such numbers as he considers necessary." 10 U.S.C. § 12406.
October 9, 2025 at 3:54 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Fun fact: Insurrection Edition.
After Hurricane Katrina, when the La governor refused to request invocation of the Insurrection Act in NOLA, Congress amended the IA to permit the president to override the governor in such situations.
SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMER GENCIES. (a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "$333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law "(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to- "(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the Inited States, the President determines that "(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State of possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and "ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2): or (B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrec-tion, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2). "(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that— "(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that state or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a night, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fall, or refuse o protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or PUBLIC LAW 109-364-OCT. 17, 2006 "(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. "(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. "(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.-The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority." (2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE. Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting "or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws" after "insurgents" (3) HEADING AMENDMENT.-The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows: "CHAPTER 15-ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER". 120 STAT
October 9, 2025 at 2:08 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Here’s the Supreme Court in Perpich describing how it works. (10 USC §§ 331-333 was the Insurrection Act. 10 USC §§ 3500 & 8500 are now 10 USC § 12406)
∞ See Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366, 382-389 (1918); Cox v. Wood, 247 U. S. 3, 6 (1918). « Congress has by distinct statutes provided for activating the National Guard of the United States and for calling forth the militia, including the National Guards of the various States. See 10 U.S. C. §§ 672-675 (au-thorizing executive officials to order reserve forces, including the National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States, to active duty); 10 U. S. C. §§331-333 (authorizing executive officials to call forth the militia of the States); 10 U. S. C. §§ 3500, 8500 (au-thorizing executive officials to call forth the National Guards of the various States). When the National Guard units of the States are called forth, the orders "shall be issued through the governors of the States." § 3500.
October 7, 2025 at 1:46 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
The government appears to conflate the National Guard of the United States (a reserve component) with the National Guard as the organized militia.
STATEMENT A. Legal Background 1. The Constitution authorizes Congress to raise and support a national Army and to organize "the Militia." See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15. Exercising that authority, Congress has "created the National Guard of the United States, a federal organization comprised of state national guard units and their members." Perpich v. Department of Def., 496 U.S. 334, 338 (1990) (quotation marks omitted). The National Guard is composed of both the State National Guard, under the command of the several States, and the National Guard of the United States, a federal entity under the federal chain of command, see 10 U.S.C. § 10101. Once called into federal service, "members of the National Guard... lose their status as members of the state militia during their period of active duty," Perpich, 496 U.S. at 347, become federal soldiers,
October 7, 2025 at 12:46 PM
jnklz.bsky.social
Oh lord. I made it into the gov appeal. Now I have to figure out what I wrote in 2018 that could support the statement for which it’s cited.
October 5, 2025 at 10:17 PM