A privately funded National Guard deployment is legal, but is it ethical?

*Capitol. There's a difference.

Not even remotely comparable.

The assumption here is that the deployment was for political expediency rather than to address a specific threat. While I understand some might want to believe that, I don't think we can assume the premise before establishing it as a fact. And give that it speaks to motive, and given that there was an attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th which clearly demonstrates a willingness to use violence and force against the government of the United States, demonstrating the presence of a legitimate threat, I feel you will be hard pressed to establish the premise of political expediency as a fact.

When discussing these points, the Compact between the States that established the Federal Government is worth a review.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants authority to Congress to establish a system for immigration and to provide for the National Security (which includes our borders). This includes the Congressional authority to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." As the Framers understood the term "Invasion" in their era, "A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force." (Webster's American English Dictionary 1828). Though unarmed, the massive influx of "illegal immigrants" -- aided by armed Cartel operatives and infiltrated by terrorists -- constitutes an "invasion" in a sense.

Since Congress has established fair Laws for Immigration (which the Executive Branch will not faithfully execute) an are faced with an invasion along our Southern Border (in a broad sense), there is cause to deploy the National Guard -- a modern form of the Militia -- to "...execute the Laws of the Union,... and repel Invasions."

Neither the U.S. Congress nor the Executive Branch have elected to deploy the Guard. Moreover, the Federal Government in the last six months has willfully and deliberately refused to fulfill their obligations under the United States Constitution. So, what can States do?

Amendment X states: "The powers not DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [EMPHASIS ADDED]. Imagine if I posed this question in another thread: "Who delegates to Whom?" Does the Subordinate delegate to the Superior? Or does the Superior delegate to the Subordinate? We know the answer to this -- the Federal Government is Subordinate to the States that created it and granted it limited and enumerated powers.

If a Subordinate mutinies and REFUSES to carry out their assigned duties, there are many options available to the Superior. Among these are the option to rescind (even temporarily) the delegated authority vested in the subordinate and carry on the duties themselves. In the case of Texas, Arizona and others lending assistance to their cause, that is precisely the Constitutional option the States have Lawfully undertaken -- and the Supremacy Clause does not protect the Federal Government when they are derelict in exercising their delegated powers.

Moreover, according to Amendment X, The People also delegated enumerated powers, and they -- like the States -- may volunteer to participate in the States' exercise of power -- including providing private funding.