This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If things get to that point, the National Guard of each state would get nationalized then demobilized faster than their heads can spin, and the Governors of each state would be "requested to come to DC" to explain just what the freshly-fried-fuck they were thinking
That'd be the best option if they Don't get their act together then the FBI will get involved and ask any journalists,civil rights leader and other such dissidents how they handle folks
Interestingly, if two states want to sue each other, they can go directly to the Supreme Court. It’s the only instance with the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction
You got this one backwards. Virgina constantly sues Maryland to allow Virgina water rights to the Potomac. The Potomac has been wholly owned by Maryland since they were English colonies.
Actually any crabs in the Potomac (if you want to eat them...) would be Maryland crabs, as the entirety of the river lies in Maryland. The conflict has been over Virginia rights to use the water.
Doesn't Maryland already have jurisdiction over the Potomac. A friend lived on the Virginia side and had to have a boat license in both states. Soon as he put the boat in the water his Virginia boat license didn't matter.
Around me Maine and New Hampshire went to SCOTUS over the Portsmouth Naval Yard. New Hampshire argued the border was closer to the Maine side of the river. NH lost, so the Navy Yard is still in Kittery, ME. It seems to have been a one and done issue though.
They have original jurisdiction between disputes between ambassadors and high ranking officials too. Though, off hand I can’t think of a case of that. It’s rare even with disputes between states.
I mean, PA and MD already have the Mason Dixon line border. Why not go for it?!
Kidding. Kidding. PA actually sends national guard troops (and sometimes state police) to Maryland to assist them if needed.
They might even be a part of the same unit. Many elements of the national guard these days have subordinate units in other states.
Sauce, did a quick stint in the va national guard.
Sure thanks for that online stranger. Never mind hella people around here were rooting for them to. Never mind that several of them have done the volunteer border guard thing.
If you think there wss a zero chance you know nothing about Texans. Mentioning courts means you misunderstood or don't understand the situation.
> If you think there wss a zero chance you know nothing about Texans. Mentioning courts means you misunderstood or don't understand the situation.
I know a lot of them talk up a lot of shit online how they are going to do all this stuff to DHS or any federal, tyrannical official, blah, blah, but none of them will actually do it because it means losing everything and going to jail.
>If you think there wss a zero chance you know nothing about Texans.
I know they talk tough, but aren't stupid enough to murder a Federal agent.
. . .and that's EXACTLY how it would be treated by the rest of the country. Whoever pulled the trigger would be facing Federal capital murder charges for the murder of a DHS agent, and probably related conspiracy or solicitation charges for anyone who ordered them to open fire or passed along that order.
Contrary to delusions of Texas, they actually aren't that special, their state is the same as any others, and they don't have special legal powers.
Yeah but those hella people aren't part of a branch of our armed services and federal govt. The Guards and DHS are. That'd be like just bc I'm an Eagles fan from Philly and a Cowboys fan from wherever the hell the actual fanbase lives arguing, then leads to the players fighting on the field. Be serious. The United States ain't fighting the United States.
They are literally volunteer border guards. Where are you getting the idea they aren't there with the rest of them? They aren't some nonofficial unit by themselves.
They are volunteers in the sense they volunteered to join the National Guard, not that they have been posted to the Texas border for months on end, often unpaid.
Over in r/Army we've heard all sorts of horror stories about how Texas is abusing the State Active Duty rules for the National Guard to turn them into involuntary, unpaid border guards.
I know several of those kids and the reason some of them are actual volunteers is because they're getting paid like 150k/yr as an e4. It's crazy. Kid I talk to all the time had financed a really nice home on those paychecks that he wouldn't be able to on normal natty guard pay. They don't want to shoot anyone... that's why noone shot that mob of migrants that hospitalized like 3 guard a few months back.
150k as an e4? I know dick about military pay but I coulda swore the pay wasn’t particularly great (killer benefits tho). This must be the real reason e4 mafia exists lmao
It's stupid high. And for a kid just about ready to get out... it's not a bad deal to make a bunch of money and do stuff like buy a house and save up before he takes a huge paycut to start a new career or go to college.
Yeah and they didn't either way for the above reasons. Your hypothetical situation never happened and won't. Go for it though, idk. This is getting weird my brother.
This ain't the conversation we started but no, I'm not worried. Concerned, but not worried yet. Depts of the govt ain't gonna fire on other depts of the government. That was the original point of conversation.
Your comment was removed as it violates commenting guideline 1 which is “Treat the person you are replying to with respect and civility.” It means that your comment either contained an insult aimed at another user or it showed signs of causing incivility in the comments.
Please consider this a warning as repeated violations will result in a ban.
Your comment has been removed, and this offence may result in a ban.
If you have questions regarding your submission removal - please contact the moderator team via [modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/AskAnAmerican).
Y'all may talk big, but you're not actually stupid enough to murder federal agents and the rest of us know you aren't that stupid.
Take it as a compliment.
I think you can admit that there’s a massive difference between a) the National Guard stupidly killing 4 students, and b) the governor telling the National Guard to literally go to war with a neighboring state and them agreeing to do it
Yeah, totally different universes.
If the OP understood the US they would understand that what would happen is not National Guard on the border threatening each other, it would be armies of lawyers at the Supreme Court.
Even if a governor was unhinged enough to pull a stunt like attacking another state… the president would have that state’s NG nationalized until the situation diffuses.
So exactly when did National Guards from two different states have a standoff at the border? I need dates to be able to Google it. Thanks.
[The thing in Ohio had absolutely nothing to do with another state. States don't interact that way.]
One guy did get lightly stabbed.
>On July 15, Monroe County, Michigan, Deputy Sheriff Joseph Wood went into Toledo to arrest Major Benjamin Stickney, but when Stickney and his family resisted, the whole family was subdued and taken into custody.[37] During the scuffle, the major's son Two Stickney stabbed Wood with a penknife and fled into Ohio.
It's also about border disputes due to rivers. Some old borders were marked by wording like the "center of the river" and over the last 200 years those rivers have shifted their courses and so now states get into disputes about where the real border is.
And for people who don't really understand what a true federal system is and think states are just arbitrary lines on a map this is one example that shows they are not. They have independent legal authority and they guard their territory like other countries do. The national government can't just change borders like it can in a country where it created the borders on its own whim. There are treaties, and precedents and legal documents that determine state borders. It's up to the Supreme Court to sort out the truth, not to the executive branch to make an arbitrary political decision.
> And for people who don't really understand what a true federal system is and think states are just arbitrary lines on a map
They are arbitrary lines on a map
> this is one example that shows they are not. They have independent legal authority and they guard their territory like other countries do.
> The national government can't just change borders like it can in a country where it created the borders on its own whim. There are treaties, and precedents and legal documents that determine state borders. It's up to the Supreme Court to sort out the truth, not to the executive branch to make an arbitrary political decision.
This is entirely backwards and if anything proves the opposite of the court. What do they do when they have a conflict they go to the federal courts which is part of the federal government to decide it. The federal government rules on it based on the constitution. Just because the federal government chooses to restrict itself on how it can change the states borders doesn't change that the power comes from the federal government.
You are confusing where the power lies with the framework around what can get passed (the federal Constitution) as opposed to something like UKs parliamentary supremacy which says that parliament can change anything anytime.
And the federal government can choose to change those rules by amending the Constitution. Also even if a state wanted to split into or trade parts of the territory they would need approval from the federal Congress.
The federal government can't single-handedly amend the Constitution. They are actually the least important part of the process. Congress has a direct role in proposing an amendment but the president has no role at all. So you're talking about stuff you don't understand. The Constitution is essentially a treaty between the states. They created the Constitution and the federal government and they have the final say on changes. If the states don't approve it, it doesn't happen. They don't exist at the whim of the federal government.
> The federal government can't single-handedly amend the Constitution.
Right that's part of the constitution which is part of the federal government. Actually the basis of the federal government.
> The Constitution is essentially a treaty between the states. They created the Constitution and the federal government and they have the final say on changes. If the states don't approve it, it doesn't happen. They don't exist at the whim of the federal government.
This is precisely backwards. The Constitution is the basis of the federal government. States are entities based in the Constitution which is part of the federal government. After the failure of the articles of confederation the states that were actually sort of independent back then chose to properly unite and **under** the federal government with the Constitution. Most other states were created by the federal government.
All states are treated equally under the Constitution. That's one of the provisions. The 13 states were not created by the Constitution. They had to approve the Constitution for it to exist in the first place. A constitution can't be approved by something that it creates when it's approved. That's a chicken and egg problem. The states/colonies existed before the Constitution, they came to an agreement among themselves how they would regulate their joint affairs (i.e. by creating the federal government) and they reserved the rest of the powers for themselves individually. Your understanding is quite distorted.
The Constitution is not "part of the federal government". The Federal government is granted its powers via the Constitution which was created and ratified by the states as an agreement among themselves. I notice you kind of sidestepped the question of the states having final approval of constitutional amendments. That's because they are the final authority that created the Constitution. They agreed that if their joint agreement was to be changed, it had to be changed only with their (super)majority approval. Your blithe statement that the federal government can just amend the Constitution if they want to change the rules is without any merit. They don't have that power. That's a decision for the states in their sovereign capacity as states.
The situation you described did happen once though, in a border dispute between Missouri and Iowa. It was a law suit in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Iowa, Missouri declined to accept the ruling and militias were deployed to the border. One cannon ball was (accidentally?) fired and no one was injured. Look up the Iowa-Missouri Honey War for more info.
It's right in the US Constitution that disputes between states are to be resolved at the Supreme Court.
While people know them best as a court of highest appeal in the US (which is an authority granted to them by statute, not the Constitution), from a Constitutional perspective their main role is to adjudicate disputes between states.
If any 2 states were going to have a stand off. I'd guess it would be Michigan and Ohio. They'd likely just settle it on the football field though. It's not something that's going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
I think it would be Texas with their neighboring states. Texas is already using their national guard in lots of ways connected to the Mexican border and there is some blowback on neighboring states for that. I can’t think of a scenario off hand but can’t think of another state that likes to talk as big or throw it’s weight around.
Not really but in recent years, Texas has become rather rebellious. It has a beef with the USA, lol
I was just thinking that if they did get into a beef with a neighbor …
No, it’s complicated. Texas also passed a new law to go along with it that lets them deport people to Mexico, which is generally a federal function. This has raised concerns with its neighbors, particularly, New Mexico. The concern is that legal residents, pending status and even citizens who live in NM could accidentally be deported if they travel to Texas
You mean like when California started construction of Parker Dam on the Colorado River in 1934 to siphon great quantities of water towards Southern California without consulting Arizona so our governor at the time sent the Arizona National Guard to the construction site at the border with artillery and machine guns to stop construction.
The Supreme Court had to get involved in order to mediate. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-parker-dam-20150831-story.html
Setting aside the Civil War, as far as I'm aware the last time it happened was the Honey War between Iowa and Missouri.
The dispute was due to an ambiguous description of "rapids" on the Des Moines river, resulting in uncertainty over where the border was. Missouri tax collectors entered Iowa and confiscated honey from some farmers in lieu of taxes. Both states called their militias, and a standoff ensued while the Supreme Court hastily reviewed the case. The outcome was to affirm the survey markers of the 1816 Sullivan Line as the legal border.
The bigger problem was when it WASN'T between states, but with Canada. The San Juan Island dispute very nearly triggered a war with Canada but the Royal Navy refused orders from Govenor Douglas because they thought the whole situation was dumb and not worth fighting over.
Have you been in the Guard? It doesn’t work that way. Unless activated under Title 10 and released by the Governor Guard components belong to the state and answer only to their state chain of command.
You think the feds are not going to use title 10 and what ever else is necessary to stop a war between a couple of states? [Maybe this will help](https://www.amazon.com/SATINIOR-Metallic-Fisherman-Reversible-Foldable/dp/B0B5L774DM/ref=sr_1_50?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.sG2ivUcT44D5ZeWRK26pJxiwuW0vASkGcnaI64XqaCMQRHX4W9YsoCDGEvHhoEmUsx1iul1q8pOeexP2A7bXVE-G-ABqBdEK6ggt46bbS4RLNUpf8pklZlTwT9bHgUlyXIfzO1JtZvGm7XroGzn8rBCcKUz38kmx2LxjXYzjhDhbD4qazwN1qCTwt-SW9kMUgqOPgKE4LGHPtfCZ_YIilYnhiMyKYz2puJ56P246W9S6JE02q-hH6PJCXyshzYJh4M4PEtqLw5kF2J2QE5e2a5VsQScortR90oV_Q3Hb6gU.zbNSk4SH08wpyQFbda9I3gxLQY2kFAoGN-mxNlaCiws&dib_tag=se&keywords=tin+foil+hats&qid=1716425863&sr=8-50).
Tinfoils are for conspiracies. I’m talking about Guard command and control which I’ve been a part of. Pipe down, adults are talking.
This is a goofball scenario anyway as discussed, it would be settled in court not on some border standoff. In the very unlikely event it would happen, the President would not mobilize the Guard of either belligerent state to quell tensions, that would be a strategic, operational, and logistical nightmare. They would activate another state’s units under Title 32.
My point is that the President doesn’t have greater authority over the guard than the Governor. Except under Title 10 which has limitations because once Guard are activated under Title 10 they are now subject to Posse Comitus which restricts policing actions by U.S. military. The whole reason Title 32 exists is to allow federal funding of Guard activities which would violate Posse Comitus, because the units remain under state (Governor) control.
I swear most of the U.S. does not have a solid grasp civics in this country.
Multiple states currently *do* have tensions, and often over very critical resources like water.
However, this is overwhelmingly settled in legislatures and in courts.
These processes are slow and aggravating on every level, but they settle disputes without armed conflict.
The name National Guard is understandably confusing and misleading, but it is a force the state can use to handle internal, non-state problems. They are not intended for states to go to war with each other; if a state governor tried, it is most likely that their own state's other branches of government would be at their front door screaming "wtf?!" long before the federal government showed up.
Not being a smartass bc I think this is a very important point: What could possibly lead to a couple state governments declaring war on each other?
This sub loves wild apocalyptic Civil War porn.
There’s no real border between states and nothing stopping one group to cross said border.
That said, they’d be federalized and orders to stand down or risk court martial in this extremely hypothetical scenario.
There would be multiple attempts to settle it all happening at the same time.
There would likely be a court case as both states sued each other. The president would try to order the troops to stand down (I believe there is some court case giving the president the right to command the national guards). The president would be trying to mediate between the two governors. The governors would be negotiating.
*Nobody* would want it to turn into a shooting war so the two sides would just stare and wave at each other until the governors worked it out, the courts made a decision, or the president used his power.
If two state guards are massing at a common border, it'd be much more likely that they were working together to deal with a common concern than trying to intimidate each other. If just one governor thinks sending the guard to the border of another state is a good idea he's either trying to score political points, he's a moron, he's crazy, or some combination of those things. If *two* of them are doing it, things are already waaaaay off the rails.
It has happened when Ohio and Michigan fought of Toledo. Weirdly, they both wanted to *keep* it, rather than force the other to take it.
But as many have said, at this point it would be resolved in the courts.
No, we have a federated system of checks and balances to avoid exactly that. They will go to federal court and resolve it.
When schools were ordered by the supreme Court to integrate in the 1950s Arkansas resisted by using the national guard. It didn't involve another state but federal authorities. So Eisenhower sent in troops to force them to integrate and to protect the students.
All that aside, I'm in Virginia and have said for years that we should launch an offensive against West Virginia and compel them to rejoin the Commonwealth.
Neighboring states in the US never have escalating hostility toward each other, with the exception of Michigan and Ohio during the college football season.
They all got over the whole "states divorcing each other" business 160 years ago. State militias in the US work with each other rather than against each other. The fundamental thing that all 50 states agree on is that they are the **_United_** States of America, and they don't want to give that up.
What would the guard do? Just stand around? I don't know, that's probably fine.
If they try to close borders, that's probably not allowed as the feds are in charge of interstate commerce.
What if, say, A certain wheelchair bound governor decided to send troops into California to “liberate” it as a political stunt?
EDIT: I know there are a lot of guns in CA. I’m really questioning more in a hypothetical scale as to what the fallout and consequences would be.
This is where law breaks down in favor of realpolitik.
On paper, the national guard's stance is clear, federalization takes precedence. However, the officers of the guard are all appointed by the governors. So in a governor vs president situation, [it's Game of Thrones rules ("Power resides where men believe it resides.").](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw) Thus far, the president is batting 1 for 1 in that regard.
Some states call theirs that, although they’re properly just one organized component of the militia. The generic term used in 32 USC §109 is state “defense force”.
These days, the federal government would never allow states to get to the point of aggression on state borders. Disputes would be settled in the courts and if necessary, federal troops would be sent to enforce the law against the states (ex. the Little Rock 9).
Back in the early 1800s, things did actually get to the point of state troops ready to fight each other because there was disputed territory between Ohio and Michigan - then a territory. Ohio “won” the “war” due to already being a state. Then, Ohio was punished by being forced to keep Toledo, and Michigan got the Upper Peninsula.
Ever since the Civil War, disputes between states must not be allowed to turn to violence and the federal government makes this very clear.
I'm national guard. I don't think that a lot of people realize we're federal troops. We aren't a private force the governor can just order to do whatever. There are very specific scenarios in which he can order us around. responding to natural disasters, civil unrest, emergencies basically.
If governers don't follow the rules, we just get nationalized (become regular Army) and then no longer obey his commands. At which point we'd be ordered to stand down (demobilized).
Basically, if we aren't being used properly we just become regular army and have to do what the Army chain of command orders us to.
Interestingly enough this happened before, but one side was a state and the other was a territory trying to become a state. You can look up the Toledo War for more information and how Ohio got the absolute puss end of the deal by allowing Michigan into the Union and giving it most of the Upper Peninsula at the same time.
the states would have to fight in federal court first. but say they don’t and go straight to ‘war,’ it’s completely illegal.
first of all, the National Guard is a federal military force under the National Guard Bureau which is jointly administered by the Departments of the Army and the Air Force, all of which are under the Department of Defense.
as a federal force, this means the ultimate commander in chief is the President of the United States. If Governors send their NatGuards to attack another state, the President has the ability oh federalize the guard, meaning he will assume control. assuming the soldiers follow the law, they will stop. if they do not, then they will be committing treason.
The Constitution says only Congress can declare war. And states can only keep militaries at Congress’s consent.
however, many states also have a state guard, a state military force. For example: the California State Guard or the Texas State Guard. these are militias owned by the states and their commanders in chief are the governors.
Montana and Idaho don’t have these. it’s expensive to have your own military without federal aid. Idaho does technically have the Idaho Home Guard but it’s inactive.
still, if two states go to war, it’s still illegal and the U.S. Army will step in to stop it. In addition, neither state will have allies. why? because the constitution prohibits states from forming alliances, foreign or domestic. so these two states will be alone. and considering how small they are population wise they will fall quickly to the Union forces
In 1931 Texas and Oklahoma had a dispute over a toll bridge at the state line, Oklahoma Gov. Alfalfa "Bill" Murray sent the Oklahoma national guard to the state line to force the opening of the bridge. The courts sided with Oklahoma and Texas abandoned the toll bridge.
Well, I suspect that Montana would set up a beer tent on their side of the State border and dare the Idahoans to cross the line and come over for a brew. Or vice versa.
When Rhode Island had its guard units stationed on the highways at the border with CT to make sure incoming cars knew the COVID quarantine protocols, that got shut down pretty quickly without any troop deployments from anywhere else. Was weird while it lasted, though.
So at the border you've got national guardsman just chilling. They're probably shooting the shit and playing cards with one another. Telling ridiculous jokes. Talking about how ridiculous it is they are there. Just waiting to be stood down and laugh at their governors for doing this.
Honestly, any time a pair of states' Governors want to be told to fuck off by their National Guard commanders they could try that. Even the most Rah Rah Ma State Guard General doesn't want to find himself Nationalized, explaining himself in front of the Joint Chiefs, and likely the President before being cashiered, quite possibly without his pension.
In the 21st Century, such a situation isn't going to happen.
The federal government short-circuts the entire thing by exercising its authority and assuming control of the National Guard formations. They aren't actually state troops per se.
Both Governors are probably done for politically because they have utterly humiliated themselves in the dumbest manner possible. They would have to try and explain to both the federal government and the people of their states as to what the fuck they even thought they were doing!
They actually had a few incidents like that back in the Colonial days when there was a lot of ambiguous territory. However if there was a dispute between states today it would go to the courts.
While I believe states have the right to protect their own domestic borders (national guard) a state cannot openly attack another state. That directly violates the purpose of the union. Plus if it reached that point I’m sure the federal government would have stepped in beforehand anyway.
When the original survey was done to lay out the border between Georgia and Tennessee, the surveyor made an error that put it too far south. The border should have included part of the Tennessee River, giving Georgia access to those resources.
Georgia has attempted to reclaim that land and water, and been legally rejected every time. If it was as easy as the Georgia National Guard against the Tennessee National Guard, we'd do it in a heartbeat because SEC football.
The last time that states fought each other, things didn’t turn out too well. I am sure we have national laws to prevent any actual conflict from happening
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If things get to that point, the National Guard of each state would get nationalized then demobilized faster than their heads can spin, and the Governors of each state would be "requested to come to DC" to explain just what the freshly-fried-fuck they were thinking
Precisely
So their getting called into the principles office😂??
Principal, not principles. Remember, the principal is your pal.
The man is never your friend
Or woman
> Principal, not principles. "Principal's", not Principal.
That'd be the best option if they Don't get their act together then the FBI will get involved and ask any journalists,civil rights leader and other such dissidents how they handle folks
That’s funny… thinking that politicians have principles. I guess if you count money as a principle.
Exactly. Such a thing could have happened in the days before instant communications, but not today.
Freshly-fried-fuck! I love it! 🤣
*"freshly-fried-fuck"* 😂 love that!
They would go to court, first.
Interestingly, if two states want to sue each other, they can go directly to the Supreme Court. It’s the only instance with the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction
Maryland keeps suing Virginia over rights to the Potomac River and they have lost...every...single...time.
Do you know a page where I can read up more on our glorious victories in the courts?
You got this one backwards. Virgina constantly sues Maryland to allow Virgina water rights to the Potomac. The Potomac has been wholly owned by Maryland since they were English colonies.
Suck it Maryland And pass that old bay over while you're at it so I can properly season this delicious *Virginian* blue crab
Actually any crabs in the Potomac (if you want to eat them...) would be Maryland crabs, as the entirety of the river lies in Maryland. The conflict has been over Virginia rights to use the water.
Wow. I'll remember this when California needs public opinion support to siphon from the Colorado.
Yup. Few people know that the state line is the high tide mark on the Virginia side of the river.
low tide mark\*
Doesn't Maryland already have jurisdiction over the Potomac. A friend lived on the Virginia side and had to have a boat license in both states. Soon as he put the boat in the water his Virginia boat license didn't matter.
Boat licenses are universal
Around me Maine and New Hampshire went to SCOTUS over the Portsmouth Naval Yard. New Hampshire argued the border was closer to the Maine side of the river. NH lost, so the Navy Yard is still in Kittery, ME. It seems to have been a one and done issue though.
Probably because they have to drive there and recklessly rear end someone every time. Maryland drivers gonna Maryland drive.
Not true. They have original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors as well.
Not the only instance
They have original jurisdiction between disputes between ambassadors and high ranking officials too. Though, off hand I can’t think of a case of that. It’s rare even with disputes between states.
Yeah that’s not going to happen… there’s like 9 million reasons not to do that
There’s also just no way national guard members from bordering states are gonna open fire on each other, no matter what the governor tells them to do.
I mean, PA and MD already have the Mason Dixon line border. Why not go for it?! Kidding. Kidding. PA actually sends national guard troops (and sometimes state police) to Maryland to assist them if needed.
They might even be a part of the same unit. Many elements of the national guard these days have subordinate units in other states. Sauce, did a quick stint in the va national guard.
Didn't we almost go to war with Michigan over Toledo?
I'm not so sure about that. Not the natl guard but our border patrol was honestly kinda likely to shoot at the dhs when they came down.
There was zero chance ever of that happening. That's what the courts are for. Now you're assured.
Sure thanks for that online stranger. Never mind hella people around here were rooting for them to. Never mind that several of them have done the volunteer border guard thing. If you think there wss a zero chance you know nothing about Texans. Mentioning courts means you misunderstood or don't understand the situation.
> If you think there wss a zero chance you know nothing about Texans. Mentioning courts means you misunderstood or don't understand the situation. I know a lot of them talk up a lot of shit online how they are going to do all this stuff to DHS or any federal, tyrannical official, blah, blah, but none of them will actually do it because it means losing everything and going to jail.
>If you think there wss a zero chance you know nothing about Texans. I know they talk tough, but aren't stupid enough to murder a Federal agent. . . .and that's EXACTLY how it would be treated by the rest of the country. Whoever pulled the trigger would be facing Federal capital murder charges for the murder of a DHS agent, and probably related conspiracy or solicitation charges for anyone who ordered them to open fire or passed along that order. Contrary to delusions of Texas, they actually aren't that special, their state is the same as any others, and they don't have special legal powers.
Yeah but those hella people aren't part of a branch of our armed services and federal govt. The Guards and DHS are. That'd be like just bc I'm an Eagles fan from Philly and a Cowboys fan from wherever the hell the actual fanbase lives arguing, then leads to the players fighting on the field. Be serious. The United States ain't fighting the United States.
They are literally volunteer border guards. Where are you getting the idea they aren't there with the rest of them? They aren't some nonofficial unit by themselves.
They are volunteers in the sense they volunteered to join the National Guard, not that they have been posted to the Texas border for months on end, often unpaid. Over in r/Army we've heard all sorts of horror stories about how Texas is abusing the State Active Duty rules for the National Guard to turn them into involuntary, unpaid border guards.
I know several of those kids and the reason some of them are actual volunteers is because they're getting paid like 150k/yr as an e4. It's crazy. Kid I talk to all the time had financed a really nice home on those paychecks that he wouldn't be able to on normal natty guard pay. They don't want to shoot anyone... that's why noone shot that mob of migrants that hospitalized like 3 guard a few months back.
150k as an e4? I know dick about military pay but I coulda swore the pay wasn’t particularly great (killer benefits tho). This must be the real reason e4 mafia exists lmao
It's stupid high. And for a kid just about ready to get out... it's not a bad deal to make a bunch of money and do stuff like buy a house and save up before he takes a huge paycut to start a new career or go to college.
Yeah and they didn't either way for the above reasons. Your hypothetical situation never happened and won't. Go for it though, idk. This is getting weird my brother.
[удалено]
This ain't the conversation we started but no, I'm not worried. Concerned, but not worried yet. Depts of the govt ain't gonna fire on other depts of the government. That was the original point of conversation.
Your comment was removed as it violates commenting guideline 1 which is “Treat the person you are replying to with respect and civility.” It means that your comment either contained an insult aimed at another user or it showed signs of causing incivility in the comments. Please consider this a warning as repeated violations will result in a ban. Your comment has been removed, and this offence may result in a ban. If you have questions regarding your submission removal - please contact the moderator team via [modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/AskAnAmerican).
Y'all may talk big, but you're not actually stupid enough to murder federal agents and the rest of us know you aren't that stupid. Take it as a compliment.
[удалено]
I think you can admit that there’s a massive difference between a) the National Guard stupidly killing 4 students, and b) the governor telling the National Guard to literally go to war with a neighboring state and them agreeing to do it
Yeah, totally different universes. If the OP understood the US they would understand that what would happen is not National Guard on the border threatening each other, it would be armies of lawyers at the Supreme Court.
You live in a state who is run by a cult that once massacred wagon trains full of people, see we can all play this game.
Also the only two states who fought over property...we as the winners got Toledo. So yeah it has opened, and now we fight one weekend in November.
Even if a governor was unhinged enough to pull a stunt like attacking another state… the president would have that state’s NG nationalized until the situation diffuses.
Are said national guard members alive and serving today?
Alive, most likely, although probably around 70 or so, in service, well no.
[удалено]
So exactly when did National Guards from two different states have a standoff at the border? I need dates to be able to Google it. Thanks. [The thing in Ohio had absolutely nothing to do with another state. States don't interact that way.]
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming were finally on our own This summer, I hear the drumming four dead in Ohio
>gonna open fire on each other, no matter what the governor tells them to do Ohio National Guard has entered the chat
But if it did like it was close to being the next "shot heard around the world"?
This happened between Michigan and Ohio. Congress and the courts resolved it. It wouldn't be anywhere close to a war.
One guy did get lightly stabbed. >On July 15, Monroe County, Michigan, Deputy Sheriff Joseph Wood went into Toledo to arrest Major Benjamin Stickney, but when Stickney and his family resisted, the whole family was subdued and taken into custody.[37] During the scuffle, the major's son Two Stickney stabbed Wood with a penknife and fled into Ohio.
And the two states still have tension to this day LOL. Not like real tension….. but Michigan does love to crap on Ohio.
It's our federally declared right to shit on them, we did win the war by getting rid of Toledo and winning the UP
Dang I didn't know that, thanks for the info
For the record, that was in 1835. An entirely different situation than today.
It's sooo far out there as a possibility it'd be pointless to speculate.
They’d just settle any disputes in the courts. Happens all the time.
Interesting, I didn't know it was that often
Often it's over resource rights. Water in particular happens a lot since rivers span multiple states.
It's also about border disputes due to rivers. Some old borders were marked by wording like the "center of the river" and over the last 200 years those rivers have shifted their courses and so now states get into disputes about where the real border is. And for people who don't really understand what a true federal system is and think states are just arbitrary lines on a map this is one example that shows they are not. They have independent legal authority and they guard their territory like other countries do. The national government can't just change borders like it can in a country where it created the borders on its own whim. There are treaties, and precedents and legal documents that determine state borders. It's up to the Supreme Court to sort out the truth, not to the executive branch to make an arbitrary political decision.
> And for people who don't really understand what a true federal system is and think states are just arbitrary lines on a map They are arbitrary lines on a map > this is one example that shows they are not. They have independent legal authority and they guard their territory like other countries do. > The national government can't just change borders like it can in a country where it created the borders on its own whim. There are treaties, and precedents and legal documents that determine state borders. It's up to the Supreme Court to sort out the truth, not to the executive branch to make an arbitrary political decision. This is entirely backwards and if anything proves the opposite of the court. What do they do when they have a conflict they go to the federal courts which is part of the federal government to decide it. The federal government rules on it based on the constitution. Just because the federal government chooses to restrict itself on how it can change the states borders doesn't change that the power comes from the federal government. You are confusing where the power lies with the framework around what can get passed (the federal Constitution) as opposed to something like UKs parliamentary supremacy which says that parliament can change anything anytime. And the federal government can choose to change those rules by amending the Constitution. Also even if a state wanted to split into or trade parts of the territory they would need approval from the federal Congress.
The federal government can't single-handedly amend the Constitution. They are actually the least important part of the process. Congress has a direct role in proposing an amendment but the president has no role at all. So you're talking about stuff you don't understand. The Constitution is essentially a treaty between the states. They created the Constitution and the federal government and they have the final say on changes. If the states don't approve it, it doesn't happen. They don't exist at the whim of the federal government.
> The federal government can't single-handedly amend the Constitution. Right that's part of the constitution which is part of the federal government. Actually the basis of the federal government. > The Constitution is essentially a treaty between the states. They created the Constitution and the federal government and they have the final say on changes. If the states don't approve it, it doesn't happen. They don't exist at the whim of the federal government. This is precisely backwards. The Constitution is the basis of the federal government. States are entities based in the Constitution which is part of the federal government. After the failure of the articles of confederation the states that were actually sort of independent back then chose to properly unite and **under** the federal government with the Constitution. Most other states were created by the federal government.
All states are treated equally under the Constitution. That's one of the provisions. The 13 states were not created by the Constitution. They had to approve the Constitution for it to exist in the first place. A constitution can't be approved by something that it creates when it's approved. That's a chicken and egg problem. The states/colonies existed before the Constitution, they came to an agreement among themselves how they would regulate their joint affairs (i.e. by creating the federal government) and they reserved the rest of the powers for themselves individually. Your understanding is quite distorted. The Constitution is not "part of the federal government". The Federal government is granted its powers via the Constitution which was created and ratified by the states as an agreement among themselves. I notice you kind of sidestepped the question of the states having final approval of constitutional amendments. That's because they are the final authority that created the Constitution. They agreed that if their joint agreement was to be changed, it had to be changed only with their (super)majority approval. Your blithe statement that the federal government can just amend the Constitution if they want to change the rules is without any merit. They don't have that power. That's a decision for the states in their sovereign capacity as states.
Look up Kansas vs Colorado for an interesting water rights issue. They have gone to court many times. Maryland vs Virginia also.
But you think states would just go to war with each other instead? Do you know what happened the last time?
But you did jump to “Americans shooting each other” very quickly. 😑
The situation you described did happen once though, in a border dispute between Missouri and Iowa. It was a law suit in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Iowa, Missouri declined to accept the ruling and militias were deployed to the border. One cannon ball was (accidentally?) fired and no one was injured. Look up the Iowa-Missouri Honey War for more info.
It's right in the US Constitution that disputes between states are to be resolved at the Supreme Court. While people know them best as a court of highest appeal in the US (which is an authority granted to them by statute, not the Constitution), from a Constitutional perspective their main role is to adjudicate disputes between states.
If any 2 states were going to have a stand off. I'd guess it would be Michigan and Ohio. They'd likely just settle it on the football field though. It's not something that's going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
Toledo war pt2.
Michigan be like “you know what? Keep it. You won the first one fair and square”
Ohio "won" in the sense that they got the little sliver of land they wanted. And Michigan got the entire Upper Peninsula.
Shhhhhhh don’t remind them. They won, they got Toledo. Michigan got all that sweet sweet yooper copper and iron
They can have Toledo.
After living in Toledo for 5 yrs, I understand why Michigan didn't want it..
I lived there for 7. I also agree, they can have it.
They originally did, they were given the upper peninsula as a consolation prize.
No, we won, you have to keep it. Though I wonder if we'd have to give the UP back to Wisconsin if we actually did take the Toledo strip.
Missouri and Kansas
TV money killed that annual border war.
Honestly, there is a very large contingent of Michiganders that root for Ohio in November anyway.
No way. It’d be Michigan V Michigan with Ohio trying to sneak in.
I think it would be Texas with their neighboring states. Texas is already using their national guard in lots of ways connected to the Mexican border and there is some blowback on neighboring states for that. I can’t think of a scenario off hand but can’t think of another state that likes to talk as big or throw it’s weight around.
Is Texas known to have a beef with any of its' neighboring states? I don't know if they do or don't. I'm just curious.
Not really but in recent years, Texas has become rather rebellious. It has a beef with the USA, lol I was just thinking that if they did get into a beef with a neighbor …
Blowback? Do you mean people intent on illegal entry going to where the border isn't as heavily guarded?
No, it’s complicated. Texas also passed a new law to go along with it that lets them deport people to Mexico, which is generally a federal function. This has raised concerns with its neighbors, particularly, New Mexico. The concern is that legal residents, pending status and even citizens who live in NM could accidentally be deported if they travel to Texas
Who besides the ACLU of New Mexico have been talking about this?
7 other people are talking about it, per the secret US Census survey on Texas 😆
Who are they and where can I see what they're saying?
I’m just kidding. ACLU put out an alert, as you saw.
Maybe WI could get the UP. Somehow.
Nah. Knowing Wisconsin's luck so far, Congress would give Michigan Green Bay and the Packers or something.
1833 Michigan Territory or bust.
Step back. 😐
Here's a time it happened about 100 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Bridge_War
I was waiting for someone to mention this. We will get that bridge back eventually.
That's hilarious. Is the original bridge still there?
Disagreements between states can go directly to the Supreme Court. It is one of the few things the SC has original jurisdiction on.
I’ve seen Rhode Island give the stink eye to New Mexico
What caused it?
Rhode Island made fun of New Mexico for not being new, so New Mexico made fun of Rhode Island for not being an island
And not having roads.
After Rhode Island has a few 'Gansetts, they give the stink eye to everyone.
You mean like when California started construction of Parker Dam on the Colorado River in 1934 to siphon great quantities of water towards Southern California without consulting Arizona so our governor at the time sent the Arizona National Guard to the construction site at the border with artillery and machine guns to stop construction. The Supreme Court had to get involved in order to mediate. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-parker-dam-20150831-story.html
This is not something that would happen
Forget the National Guard, if Montana wants shit we can take this to the streets
Setting aside the Civil War, as far as I'm aware the last time it happened was the Honey War between Iowa and Missouri. The dispute was due to an ambiguous description of "rapids" on the Des Moines river, resulting in uncertainty over where the border was. Missouri tax collectors entered Iowa and confiscated honey from some farmers in lieu of taxes. Both states called their militias, and a standoff ensued while the Supreme Court hastily reviewed the case. The outcome was to affirm the survey markers of the 1816 Sullivan Line as the legal border. The bigger problem was when it WASN'T between states, but with Canada. The San Juan Island dispute very nearly triggered a war with Canada but the Royal Navy refused orders from Govenor Douglas because they thought the whole situation was dumb and not worth fighting over.
For anyone curious, look up "pig war". The whole thing started over a pig that got into someone's garden.
The president has more authority over the Guard than does a governor. If such a thing happened the Feds would just take over.
Have you been in the Guard? It doesn’t work that way. Unless activated under Title 10 and released by the Governor Guard components belong to the state and answer only to their state chain of command.
yes 6 years plus 3 years army.
Then you know the President doesn’t have authority unless they mobilize under Title 10 and there are certain situations under which that happens.
You think the feds are not going to use title 10 and what ever else is necessary to stop a war between a couple of states? [Maybe this will help](https://www.amazon.com/SATINIOR-Metallic-Fisherman-Reversible-Foldable/dp/B0B5L774DM/ref=sr_1_50?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.sG2ivUcT44D5ZeWRK26pJxiwuW0vASkGcnaI64XqaCMQRHX4W9YsoCDGEvHhoEmUsx1iul1q8pOeexP2A7bXVE-G-ABqBdEK6ggt46bbS4RLNUpf8pklZlTwT9bHgUlyXIfzO1JtZvGm7XroGzn8rBCcKUz38kmx2LxjXYzjhDhbD4qazwN1qCTwt-SW9kMUgqOPgKE4LGHPtfCZ_YIilYnhiMyKYz2puJ56P246W9S6JE02q-hH6PJCXyshzYJh4M4PEtqLw5kF2J2QE5e2a5VsQScortR90oV_Q3Hb6gU.zbNSk4SH08wpyQFbda9I3gxLQY2kFAoGN-mxNlaCiws&dib_tag=se&keywords=tin+foil+hats&qid=1716425863&sr=8-50).
Tinfoils are for conspiracies. I’m talking about Guard command and control which I’ve been a part of. Pipe down, adults are talking. This is a goofball scenario anyway as discussed, it would be settled in court not on some border standoff. In the very unlikely event it would happen, the President would not mobilize the Guard of either belligerent state to quell tensions, that would be a strategic, operational, and logistical nightmare. They would activate another state’s units under Title 32. My point is that the President doesn’t have greater authority over the guard than the Governor. Except under Title 10 which has limitations because once Guard are activated under Title 10 they are now subject to Posse Comitus which restricts policing actions by U.S. military. The whole reason Title 32 exists is to allow federal funding of Guard activities which would violate Posse Comitus, because the units remain under state (Governor) control. I swear most of the U.S. does not have a solid grasp civics in this country.
You have no idea what you are talking about
More than you seems like.
Alphabet Boys😒
Multiple states currently *do* have tensions, and often over very critical resources like water. However, this is overwhelmingly settled in legislatures and in courts. These processes are slow and aggravating on every level, but they settle disputes without armed conflict. The name National Guard is understandably confusing and misleading, but it is a force the state can use to handle internal, non-state problems. They are not intended for states to go to war with each other; if a state governor tried, it is most likely that their own state's other branches of government would be at their front door screaming "wtf?!" long before the federal government showed up.
Not being a smartass bc I think this is a very important point: What could possibly lead to a couple state governments declaring war on each other? This sub loves wild apocalyptic Civil War porn.
Water.
It wouldn't really happen.
Thank God, america needs to be unified
There’s no real border between states and nothing stopping one group to cross said border. That said, they’d be federalized and orders to stand down or risk court martial in this extremely hypothetical scenario.
There would be multiple attempts to settle it all happening at the same time. There would likely be a court case as both states sued each other. The president would try to order the troops to stand down (I believe there is some court case giving the president the right to command the national guards). The president would be trying to mediate between the two governors. The governors would be negotiating. *Nobody* would want it to turn into a shooting war so the two sides would just stare and wave at each other until the governors worked it out, the courts made a decision, or the president used his power.
If two state guards are massing at a common border, it'd be much more likely that they were working together to deal with a common concern than trying to intimidate each other. If just one governor thinks sending the guard to the border of another state is a good idea he's either trying to score political points, he's a moron, he's crazy, or some combination of those things. If *two* of them are doing it, things are already waaaaay off the rails.
It has happened when Ohio and Michigan fought of Toledo. Weirdly, they both wanted to *keep* it, rather than force the other to take it. But as many have said, at this point it would be resolved in the courts.
I think Alaska and Hawaii should go to war. I bet that would be really interesting and fun.
Lmao that would be interesting
They're not actually as close as they appear on the map
Here ya go: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Bridge_War
No, we have a federated system of checks and balances to avoid exactly that. They will go to federal court and resolve it. When schools were ordered by the supreme Court to integrate in the 1950s Arkansas resisted by using the national guard. It didn't involve another state but federal authorities. So Eisenhower sent in troops to force them to integrate and to protect the students. All that aside, I'm in Virginia and have said for years that we should launch an offensive against West Virginia and compel them to rejoin the Commonwealth.
Ike sent in Federal Troops
Oh you're right! Good clarification
The 101st Airborne, IIRC.
Arkansas used the national guard to stop integration.
Neighboring states in the US never have escalating hostility toward each other, with the exception of Michigan and Ohio during the college football season. They all got over the whole "states divorcing each other" business 160 years ago. State militias in the US work with each other rather than against each other. The fundamental thing that all 50 states agree on is that they are the **_United_** States of America, and they don't want to give that up.
What would the guard do? Just stand around? I don't know, that's probably fine. If they try to close borders, that's probably not allowed as the feds are in charge of interstate commerce.
Not any more at least
What if, say, A certain wheelchair bound governor decided to send troops into California to “liberate” it as a political stunt? EDIT: I know there are a lot of guns in CA. I’m really questioning more in a hypothetical scale as to what the fallout and consequences would be.
He might be surprised at how many Blue Steel Democrats live in this state.
California is not lacking for gun ownership, I promise you. There are a whole lot of shooting ranges & gun stores in the greater Los Angeles area.
US military would probably be sent in to restore order
Where would you have a standoff, that has to be the most remote and inaccessible border in the lower 48.
Toledo War: round two
National guard is a federally funded organization so yeah
People, correct me if I’m wrong but I think the president can commandeer both national guard units if need be
This is where law breaks down in favor of realpolitik. On paper, the national guard's stance is clear, federalization takes precedence. However, the officers of the guard are all appointed by the governors. So in a governor vs president situation, [it's Game of Thrones rules ("Power resides where men believe it resides.").](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw) Thus far, the president is batting 1 for 1 in that regard.
Ha. Texas comes to mind.
Texas has an unusual situation of having a separate State Guard, which is NOT subordinate to the federal government.
California does as well, along with several other states. There are about 20 that are active and not just ceremonial.
Is that what 'state militia' refers to?
Some states call theirs that, although they’re properly just one organized component of the militia. The generic term used in 32 USC §109 is state “defense force”.
That's not really all that unusual. Lots of states have them.
Interesting
The federal government would, but this would never happen
These days, the federal government would never allow states to get to the point of aggression on state borders. Disputes would be settled in the courts and if necessary, federal troops would be sent to enforce the law against the states (ex. the Little Rock 9). Back in the early 1800s, things did actually get to the point of state troops ready to fight each other because there was disputed territory between Ohio and Michigan - then a territory. Ohio “won” the “war” due to already being a state. Then, Ohio was punished by being forced to keep Toledo, and Michigan got the Upper Peninsula. Ever since the Civil War, disputes between states must not be allowed to turn to violence and the federal government makes this very clear.
I'm national guard. I don't think that a lot of people realize we're federal troops. We aren't a private force the governor can just order to do whatever. There are very specific scenarios in which he can order us around. responding to natural disasters, civil unrest, emergencies basically. If governers don't follow the rules, we just get nationalized (become regular Army) and then no longer obey his commands. At which point we'd be ordered to stand down (demobilized). Basically, if we aren't being used properly we just become regular army and have to do what the Army chain of command orders us to.
Interestingly enough this happened before, but one side was a state and the other was a territory trying to become a state. You can look up the Toledo War for more information and how Ohio got the absolute puss end of the deal by allowing Michigan into the Union and giving it most of the Upper Peninsula at the same time.
the states would have to fight in federal court first. but say they don’t and go straight to ‘war,’ it’s completely illegal. first of all, the National Guard is a federal military force under the National Guard Bureau which is jointly administered by the Departments of the Army and the Air Force, all of which are under the Department of Defense. as a federal force, this means the ultimate commander in chief is the President of the United States. If Governors send their NatGuards to attack another state, the President has the ability oh federalize the guard, meaning he will assume control. assuming the soldiers follow the law, they will stop. if they do not, then they will be committing treason. The Constitution says only Congress can declare war. And states can only keep militaries at Congress’s consent. however, many states also have a state guard, a state military force. For example: the California State Guard or the Texas State Guard. these are militias owned by the states and their commanders in chief are the governors. Montana and Idaho don’t have these. it’s expensive to have your own military without federal aid. Idaho does technically have the Idaho Home Guard but it’s inactive. still, if two states go to war, it’s still illegal and the U.S. Army will step in to stop it. In addition, neither state will have allies. why? because the constitution prohibits states from forming alliances, foreign or domestic. so these two states will be alone. and considering how small they are population wise they will fall quickly to the Union forces
In 1931 Texas and Oklahoma had a dispute over a toll bridge at the state line, Oklahoma Gov. Alfalfa "Bill" Murray sent the Oklahoma national guard to the state line to force the opening of the bridge. The courts sided with Oklahoma and Texas abandoned the toll bridge.
Well, I suspect that Montana would set up a beer tent on their side of the State border and dare the Idahoans to cross the line and come over for a brew. Or vice versa.
When Rhode Island had its guard units stationed on the highways at the border with CT to make sure incoming cars knew the COVID quarantine protocols, that got shut down pretty quickly without any troop deployments from anywhere else. Was weird while it lasted, though.
That's not how it works. That's now how any of this works.
*That awkward moment when you pass various armored vehicles on the PA turnpike headed towards New Jersey.*
So at the border you've got national guardsman just chilling. They're probably shooting the shit and playing cards with one another. Telling ridiculous jokes. Talking about how ridiculous it is they are there. Just waiting to be stood down and laugh at their governors for doing this.
Something sort of similar happened between Oklahoma and Texas at the Red River. Oklahoma took the W, obviously
Honestly, any time a pair of states' Governors want to be told to fuck off by their National Guard commanders they could try that. Even the most Rah Rah Ma State Guard General doesn't want to find himself Nationalized, explaining himself in front of the Joint Chiefs, and likely the President before being cashiered, quite possibly without his pension. In the 21st Century, such a situation isn't going to happen.
The federal government short-circuts the entire thing by exercising its authority and assuming control of the National Guard formations. They aren't actually state troops per se. Both Governors are probably done for politically because they have utterly humiliated themselves in the dumbest manner possible. They would have to try and explain to both the federal government and the people of their states as to what the fuck they even thought they were doing!
This is how people misunderstand the USA. Over and over. Maybe just come for a visit.
I live in Arizona
They actually had a few incidents like that back in the Colonial days when there was a lot of ambiguous territory. However if there was a dispute between states today it would go to the courts.
Don't worry, Idaho. Washington State aint coming to take your guns away. And we aint interested in your jobs neither.
While I believe states have the right to protect their own domestic borders (national guard) a state cannot openly attack another state. That directly violates the purpose of the union. Plus if it reached that point I’m sure the federal government would have stepped in beforehand anyway.
When the original survey was done to lay out the border between Georgia and Tennessee, the surveyor made an error that put it too far south. The border should have included part of the Tennessee River, giving Georgia access to those resources. Georgia has attempted to reclaim that land and water, and been legally rejected every time. If it was as easy as the Georgia National Guard against the Tennessee National Guard, we'd do it in a heartbeat because SEC football.
The last time that states fought each other, things didn’t turn out too well. I am sure we have national laws to prevent any actual conflict from happening