sgtcall wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 6:16 pm
Tbeck wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 2:21 pm
You better go do some additional reading if you think I was wrong. The DC guard is under the direction of the Secretary of the Army. The presidential authority was delegated to the secretary of defense and further delegated to the secretary of the Army, that's FACT. They were neither federalized (title10) nor title 32, although Barr justified the use for title 32 purposes. And yes the DC guard both army and AF get paid out of federal money.
How and why DC guard get used is a quagmire of do's and don't. To complicate matter's guardsmen from other state's were called up for capitol security which violated a whole slew of law's.
Using the guard from state to state is not a violation of law unless that state has specific laws about it. I don't know of any that do. I do know that many states have agreements with other states to provide troops when needed. Basically, lets say Georgia has a major hurricane that destroys most of the state, states like North and South Carolina would send troops to help so that the GA troops could be at home with their families or working jobs like EMS that they do as their full time career.
Again T is flat out wrong. The secretary of the Army CANNOT order the Guard to NATIONAL duty without Presidential authority.
Considering that T claims to have been AF I would say his military education was really lacking.
Since I was not sure of exactly how the system works I went searching and looks like T still doesn't understand.
It is still unclear EXACTLY what authority was used to send state Guard units into DC.
The following article explains a lot but also leaves a lot unanswered.
It would be a good idea to read the whole article to better understand the full issue behind what went down.
I am including the portion that applies to the current discussion.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-were-ou ... xplanation
When on duty, state National Guard troops can wear three different “hats.” The first, and most common, is “State Active Duty” (SAD) status, in which they are exercising state functions at the request of the state government and are generally governed by state law. For example, when Minnesota Governor Tim Walz mobilized the Minnesota National Guard to help restore order in Minneapolis in the midst of the protests and violence arising from the murder of George Floyd, those troops were there in their SAD capacity. This first “hat” is often described as “Title 32” status (a reference to that part of the U.S. Code that deals with the National Guard), but that’s incorrect. “Title 32” status is actually the second “hat,” pursuant to which the state National Guard troops remain subject to state command and control but are used for federal missions authorized by Congress—and, perhaps most importantly, are usually paid for by the federal government.
Finally, the third hat, “Title 10” status, is when state National Guard units are “federalized” by the president of the United States pursuant to one of the specific statutory authorities for doing so. Once federalized, National Guard troops come under the full command and control of the Pentagon—specifically the secretary of defense. In essence, National Guard troops become part of the federal military until and unless they are returned to state status.
These distinctions matter for a number of reasons, including which government pays for the troops, which government can be held liable if something goes wrong, which military justice system applies to punish misconduct, and what the National Guard troops can be tasked to do. To take one especially significant example, it’s long been understood that the Posse Comitatus Act (which prohibits “us[ing] any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws”) does not apply to National Guard units in either SAD or Title 32 status, because they are not, at that point, part of the Army or the Air Force. By contrast, when National Guard troops are federalized, the Posse Comitatus Act does apply—and requires “express[]” statutory authorization before those troops can be used to “execute the laws.” To be sure, in situations in which both federal troops and unfederalized National Guard units are deployed, Congress in 2008 authorized the appointment of “dual status commanders” but only to streamline coordination—not to blur the separate chains of command.
The only exception to this structure is the D.C. National Guard. Although four of the six federal territories have National Guards (all but American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), the National Guards for Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are commanded by the territorial governors. D.C.’s Guard, in contrast, is always at the command and control of the president of the United States—at least in part because the Guard predates the creation of the D.C. local government in the early 1970s. Thus, it took no special authority for the president to activate the D.C. National Guard in response to the disorder in Washington last week.
The D.C. National Guard, though, is quite small. Apparently, during the protests, the federal government decided that it needed to be augmented by out-of-state troops. One route would have been for Mayor Bowser herself to request assistance under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), an interstate compact to which all 50 states and the District of Columbia are parties, and which Congress ratified in 1996. But that didn’t happen. So by what authority did the president utilize troops from other states’ National Guards for the same purpose? The (belated) answer, according to the attorney general, is 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). Here is the relevant text of that provision:
(f)(1) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, a member of the National Guard may—
(A) without his consent, but with the pay and allowances provided by law; or
(B) with his consent, either with or without pay and allowances;
be ordered to perform training or other duty in addition to that prescribed under subsection (a) [N.B. § 502(a) speaks only to training].
(2) The training or duty ordered to be performed under paragraph (1) may include the following:
(A) Support of operations or missions undertaken by the member’s unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense.
I can't seem to win the lottery. I think I have used up all of my good luck riding motorcycles.
MORS TYRANNIS 