It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deploying Guard WITHOUT Presidential Approval ... ( maybe )

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   

The underlying structure –

two votes, on two bills, the second one long called-for by conservatives – is the same.

But leadership strengthened the language of both in a variety of ways, including allowing border state governors to deploy the National Guard without President Obama's approval.

In a closed-door GOP conference meeting, King told colleagues that while the package yesterday had a good purpose, now it has language to match its intent, according to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).



Texas Rep. Pete Sessions entered the meeting saying
“we’re going to win.”

“I think I saw a puff of white smoke,” added Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA).

“Some of the most vocal naysayers getting up and praising it and saying that they're going to be yeses and they're going to be pounding the bushes for yes votes.

It's a new dawn.

I've got to credit both Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise for their maiden voyage being a very successful one,” added Salmon.

Tougher Border Bill Proposals

-
OPINION: Finally ... A 'DOSE' of Sanity.

( coming out of the d.c. asylum )
.

edit on 1-8-2014 by FarleyWayne because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I was unaware that state governors required federal approval to deploy the NG unit in their state. I was under the impression they could do this whenever they needed.

If this is true, why would it take legislation in DC to authorize it? Answer: It wouldn't. If this legislation isn't necessary, why is being pushed?

Oh.

Please correct me if I am mistaken in my understanding.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Montana

KEYWORD: "Funding"

( i.e. "State" or "Federal" )

-
OPINION: National-Security SHOULD be ... Federally-Funded.
.

edit on 1-8-2014 by FarleyWayne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Montana
I was unaware that state governors required federal approval to deploy the NG unit in their state. I was under the impression they could do this whenever they needed.

If this is true, why would it take legislation in DC to authorize it? Answer: It wouldn't. If this legislation isn't necessary, why is being pushed?

Oh.

Please correct me if I am mistaken in my understanding.



Title 32 Full-Time National Guard Duty
“Full-time National Guard Duty” means training or other duty, other than inactive duty, performed by a member of the National Guard. Title 32 allows the Governor, with the approval of the President or the Secretary of Defense, to order a member to duty for operational Homeland Defense activities in accordance with the following sections of U.S. Code (USC):
1. 32 USC 502 (f): This statue allows member of the National Guard to be ordered to full-time National Guard duty to perform operational activities. It was used for the Airport Security mission after 9/11 and also for Hurricane Katrina and Rita response effort.
2. 32 USC § 901: The term “Homeland Defense activity” means an activity undertaken for the military protection of the territory or domestic population of the U.S., or of infrastructure or other asset of the U.S. determined by the Secretary of Defense as being critical to national security and at risk of a threat or aggression against the U.S.
3. 32 USC § 902 - Homeland Defense activities: funds. (a) The Secretary of Defense may provide funds to a Governor to employ National Guard units or members to conduct Homeland Defense activities that the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate for participation by the National Guard or members.


NGAUS.ORG

Seems they do need approval. Not sure if it is a funding issue, ie if they become federalized then the monetary funding comes from the Fed. If not does it come from the state coffers?

Just thinking out loud.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963


Texas must act where Washington will not. Gov. Perry has called for 1,000 additional National Guard troops and we can act now to provide them. We urge Gov. Perry, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, and Speaker Straus to utilize all lawful budget authority to deploy additional members of the Texas Military Forces to the border as the Governor requested.

Texas Must Act Where Washington Will Not - ( Texas Military Forces )
.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

I understand your quote to be speaking about Ng being used in support of DHS operations which would require federal funding because DHS is a federal agency. (not sure about this, but it seems like it to me).

I think state governments can activate state NG units for action in their state without so much as a 'by your leave' from the Feds- they just have to pay for it themselves.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Montana
a reply to: seeker1963

I understand your quote to be speaking about Ng being used in support of DHS operations which would require federal funding because DHS is a federal agency. (not sure about this, but it seems like it to me).

I think state governments can activate state NG units for action in their state without so much as a 'by your leave' from the Feds- they just have to pay for it themselves.



I agree. I believe they can! I guess it is the funding that comes into play as well as possibly the Fed putting their foot down and saying they CAN'T use them....



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The State governors do not require approval to call out the guard IN THEIR STATES. This effects me being called out...IF and when the Guard is called.

And if the guard is called out...I in fact move up to their positions at guard pay until they are released from the call out.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The state Gov can call up the Guard with state funds at which point they can be used. Although they are completely untrained for such a mission they at least can be armed. As soon a single dollar of Federal funding is used then they will have empty weapons do to the law. Then again it is not they have the numbers to do much except pose for photo ops and help with paper work which is what they did the last 2 times they were sent to the border. Might as well take that money and pay the illegals to stay home, at least it would have some effect.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I'm all for this But the administration will use this as a scape goat.. the dems are saying, sure let the Governors have this power to unleash the Guard - it will take the pressure off the their Lord and Savior Obama and put it on the governors which the white house will then spin heavily.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
BEGIN-OPINION

Forget this THREAD because 'O' would VETO it anyway ... ( even if it were to pass the Senate; 'O' said so ).

TEXAS ( and perhaps other states ) WILL 'Fund' its OWN Border-Security UNTIL Jan 2015.

Jan 2015? ...

'O' will NOT have ANY VETO-Power with 67 "NON-Liberal/Progressive" Senate-Members.


END-OPINION.
.

edit on 1-8-2014 by FarleyWayne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

The info you posted is when national guard units are activated into a full time status. Full time status essentially federalizes the guard units.

The argument I see coming is political.

When they are deployed under state command guard units are not subject to posse comitatus. If they are placed under federal command and are full time they are.

State use of their respective guard units can engage in civilian law enforcement functions. Activated / full time cannot.

Other possible arguments on this topic -
If a state deploys its national guard units along an international border, is that action considered foreign policy? The action in question will impact the government of the nation in question. Would that action result in say Mexico deploying its military on their side of the border?


edit on 1-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Sure irons out that pesky "MILITIA" controversy doesn't it?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: FarleyWayne
BEGIN-OPINION

Forget this THREAD because 'O' would VETO it anyway ... ( even if it were to pass the Senate; 'O' said so ).

TEXAS ( and perhaps other states ) WILL 'Fund' its OWN Border-Security UNTIL Jan 2015.

Jan 2015? ...

'O' will NOT have ANY VETO-Power with 67 "NON-Liberal/Progressive" Senate-Members.


END-OPINION.
.


No worries, Congress can take it upon themselves to sign the bill into law since the President refuses to work with them.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join