Misfire: Pelosi, the National Guard, and Article 10, Section 12046 of the Constitution? (What?!)

Why clarify when you can do disinformation?

Nancy Patricia Pelosi, Democratic Member of the US House of Representatives from California and former Speaker of the House, misspoke during a press event criticizing President Donald John Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard. She stated that the president needed to "read Article 10, Section 12046 of the Constitution." Right-wing media quickly seized on the remark, claiming she fabricated a non-existent section of the Constitution. That is disinformation through malice and their own ignorance. Too much “media” is just agitation for clicks and revenue, it is a sign of a bad economy, especially the negative incentives of right-wing media.

In reality, Pelosi’s was not a case of constitutional illiteracy but a verbal misstep. Pelosi is an aging politician who, like many long-serving officials needs to retire, and occasionally fumbles her references, she is 85 years old. She was born before Pearl Harbor. She clearly meant to cite Title Ten of the US Code—not the Constitution. More precisely, the applicable statute is 10 US Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service.

This statute operates in accordance with Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution, which state:

"The Congress shall have Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Congress fulfilled this responsibility through the legislation codified as 10 U.S. Code § 12406, which provides:

"(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia."

Here is the issue: the orders were not issued through the Governor of California Gavin Christopher Newsom. This raises legal and procedural red flags. Obeying the Laws of the Union passed by Congress are not optional, and willfully disobeying them is an impeachable offense for a federal official. Secretary of Defense Peter Brian Hegseth appears once again to have made an operational error, putting the federalization of the Guard in violation of established law. That is clear and unambiguous.