National Guard Scenario

Let's say that the state of Georgia had a Republican governor who thought that Obama wasn't doing nearly enough to stop the ISIL. Let's say that the Georgia National Guard at this time consisted of 70,000 soldiers.
What would happen if this governor sent 20,000 Georgia National Guard troops to Iraq to fight the ISIL?

Dassault Papillon: They couldn't do that. Any act involving sending troops overseas would need to be approved by the senate.

If some governor thought he could exploit a loophole in the constitution, it would likely be blocked and go to the courts where he would lose.

All national guardsmen actually adhere to a real military CO, and the dozens of conflicts of interest would make this action impossible even if it were constitutionally legal.

Blackflag: What would happen if he did it and didn't get the permission of any higher governing body first? Is there some explicit section in the constitution of US penal code which prohibits governors from doing this?

Dassault Papillon: Over history many people have looked for exploits in the constitution, and the supreme court corrected them all by answering what the founding fathers "would" of wanted.

To answer your question though, any diplomatic or military acts performed by the United States, must be approved by 2/3rds vote in the senate.

The supreme court would never rule with the governor, and asking whether he could get away with it is pointless, since that army would never make it out of Atlanta (not to mention be dropped into a foreign country and be given basing and an airstrip to land resources)

Blackflag: Incorrect. Military operations must only receive congressional approval if they last longer than X amount of days.

Dassault Papillon: You lost me there.

Unless you are talking about the executive order, which allows the president to conduct a military operation for 30 days without the approval of congress.

Besides that, all overseas military operations need to be voted for under congress.

Dassault Papillon: X = what?

I'm sure it wouldn't be near long enough to accomplish *anything* in regards to ISIL. Even still, what impact would 70,000 soldiers (likely unwilling) have on the conflict itself?

ColeTrain: 20,000. But still, that is TWENTY THOUSAND well-armed professional soldiers. It may not be enough to win the war but it would almost certainly make a noticeable difference.

Dassault Papillon: Do you believe that those men would be willing to go and fight, given that they have the support of only one state and not the entire nation? I highly doubt it.

Dassault Papillon: And in the whole scheme of things, 20,000 is pretty insignificant. There's way too many troops over there to begin with, I don't see why we'd want to send more.

But we keep ignoring that the governor does not have the problem to send troops overseas. Especially since their commanding officers are loya and answer to the US army, and not any state guard,

Blackflag: Exactly. And my premise is still unanswered: for what reason would they be going over, and what personal interest would they have? With the mere support of one state, it's illogical to assume they'd go willingly.