?

Legally the National Guard is considered our organized militia right now. Constitutionally that should mean that the states are the authority in appointing officers for them. But I can't really find any info to see if that's actually what's going on right now. So do the states have such control right now? For all of the National Guard officers? For just some of them possibly?

I like to study history, but I've found a discrepancy that I can't seem to rectify. Basically, as I read the Militia Act of 1792 (the second one), it seems very clear that it's establishing a mandatory militia for pretty much all men of age, which will lead to all of them being in an organized militia within 12 months of passage.

However, then we have Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion, well over 12 months later, where the militia is called forth. But from everything I read on this, it claims that since VOLUNTEER service in the militia service was very low, he had to do a lot of conscription to actually raise the force he needed. I even find many examples of said non-militia volunteers being conscripted (sometimes with much resistance).

See the conflict? Was the organized form of militia (where people had a rank, an officer, a unit, met for drills, etc.) volunteer or wasn't it? Did the Militia Act of 1792 simply fail in the mandate portion and in effect only lead to a smaller volunteer organized militia and a larger unorganized reserve militia like the Militia Act of 1903 later codified anyway?

I've been unable to find an example of it happening. I've found examples of it happening with justices in state supreme courts, but never national. I find it difficult to believe that every justice has been able to be impartial on every single case brought before them all they way back to when the supreme court was established. Has it every happened?

To be clear, I'm talking about "stepping aside" for a case where a justice wouldn't be able to remain impartial, not about a justice "stepping down", i.e. retiring.