While i'm thinking away, i'll continue to think that your argument for the use of the militia (National Guard) is as vacuous as you apparently consider the editorial policy of the Times
. While acknowledging that the states probably can't sustain are argument for pulling their NGs out of a foreign war, your claim about enforcing the law doesn't cut it. The Congress did not pass legislation requiring the invasion of Iraq, nor specifying any operational policy, nor specifying how staffing needs would be met--they simply passed a resolution to give the President war powers. So i see no merit in your claim about a justification for using the National Guard.
For an interesting view on this issue, i suggest that you investigate the declaration by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1970 that citizens of that state could not be forced to serve overseas in any conflict which were not a war as declared by Congress. That action, as much as anything else, lead to the passage of the war powers act under which Mr. Bush requested authority from the Congress.
[url=anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/A70c-Mass.pdf]Here is a pdf document from Anthony Damato of the law school of Northwestern Univesity
[/url] on the subject of Massachusetts' legislation and the hearing in Federal Courts.
Certainly, your argument that Congress has the power to call out the militia to enforce laws, and therefore can send them overseas, sounds very dubious, especially with regard to the war powers act. This would be one of the most interesting arguments to arise out of attempts to enforce states' rights.