National Guard won't be allowed to stop illegal aliens!

[Wry Catcher]

Why not declare war on Mexico? We can occupy their nation with ease and if we legalize marijuana we can profit from it's marketing to third world countries and even China (hell, opium worked, why not weed). Oh, and btw, Mexico has oil and beaches, good surfing and real American food - Enchilidas, tacos, burritos, guacamole.
Yes. This qualifies as an idiotgram, but much less idiotic then most posts by fringers.

 

[Ravi]

How did I lie? That is exactly what you said. AND you are wrong.

The National Guard is OFFICIALLY part of the US Army, it is no longer an independent branch of the military. I explained this to you before. The state governor CAN declare a state emergency and the President can over ride that and federalize the Guard and there isn't a goddamn thing a governor can do about it.

If you want to discuss the Guard and there role in the so called war on drugs, fine, have it I think I might know something about that. Let's see it goes like this...... Oh yeah, in that case yes the Guard is technically under state control because if they were under federal control then posse commitatus would apply. No FEDERAL troops may act as law enforcement within US borders, however that is just a nicety. The dirty truth is that the NG in that case answers to the DEA a FEDERAL agency and the governor has NO actual say in the deployment or use of those troops once he/she has agreed to assign certain troops to whatever task force is set up. nor can a governor just ignore the DEA and send troops out to fight the war on drugs by themselves. IT's called a task force for a reason, and the neither the Guard nor the state governor are calling the shots.




I find it hilarious that you are threatening to neg rep over so called lies. You are easily the biggest liar on this board. so go ahead, neg rep away. The fact remains you did claim what I said you claimed and you are STILL wrong.

Wrong. Under Bush a law was passed allowing the Federal government to seize control of the NG that was deployed by the state's governor...but that law was repealed.

The Federal government can only federalize the guard on matters of national security, i.e. the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to use along the border.

Ravi, why are you such a lying piece of shit? I just gave an historical example of a President over riding the Governrer.

Also, if what you claim is true, then give me one good reason why Brewer is begging for national guard troops instead of simply ordering them to deploy? Further explain why the four gulf coast Governors were in the same boat, and didn't simply deploy Guard members to help with the cleanup?

Oh, the reason is simple, you have NO clue what you are talking about. None, you just want to fucking argue, doesn't matter how wrong you are or how much evidence you are shown that you are wrong, you just simply don't have that little voice inside you that says "okay admit to a mistake" , you're a piece of shit.

Again, segregation was deemed unconstitutional. A governor may not use the NG to enforce an unconstitutional law.

Brewer knows if she deploys the guard it will hurt tourism. She'd rather play politics than improve the lot of her constituents.

 

[jillian]

The answer is that the guard is under the control of both the federal and state governments depending upon the purpose of the deployment. There is NO legitimate deployment of the National Guard AGAINST the federal government. That would be treason

Both the State and Federal Government control the Army National Guard. The
Army National Guard force structure consists of Combat, Combat Support and
Combat Service Support units. Approximately 350,000 Soldiers are members of
the Army National Guard.
WHAT IS THE NATIONAL GUARD’S MISSION?
The National Guard has a unique dual mission, with both federal and state
responsibilities. During peacetime, the governor, through a State Adjutant General,
commands National Guard forces. The governor can call the National Guard into
action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, drought, civil
disturbances, and for state active duty missions in support of other natural disasters.
In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard to
participate in federal missions. For example, many Army National Guard units
have deployed to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, units are
currently serving in many locations supporting the war on terrorism. When
federalized, Army National Guard units are commanded by the Combatant
Commander of the area in which they are operating.

http://www.nationalguard.com/downloads/file/223/part8.pdf

 

[ConHog]

It was. Dubya changed that with the nonsensical Patriot ACTS
Brainwashed sheep will follow any person they point at and say " He's the boss now"
Aye Aye sir.
An American.not murkin........"officer" serving in the Arizona guard, would tell DC to go fuck itself.
BUT.
You're a nation of gutless fools, hence the collapse.

I know many would like to blame that on BOOOSH as well, but all that law did really was change some technicalites.. In reality a President has always been able to over ride a governer's command of the national guard.

Probably the greatest example of that fact is Little Rock,AR 1957 when then Governer Orval Faubus decided to defy a federal court order and ordered the Arkansas National Guard deployed to prevent black children from attending Little Rock Central High School. well President Eisenhower certainly didn't care for that, so he countermanded those orders and instead ordered that the Guard make sure those children COULD attend the high school. Guess who's orders the Guard followed?

The NG cannot go against the law you stupid asshole. Desegregation was Federal law...what an idiot you are.

Actually , state schools were not required by federal law to desegregate until 1964. Seven years AFTER the LR event. As I said, it was federal court order, not a law as you claimed. Do you now neg rep me for pointing out your stupidity and lies yet again?

Not to mention, what does that have to do with the fact that the President took over control of the state guard? is there a provision in there that says it can only be done if a law is broken? Nope

 

[jillian]

Isn't it funny, the freak'n anti government RW Fringe so scared of big gubmint (isn't that how the tea party fringers refer to the Federal Government?) now want Federalized Troops to protect our boarders?

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. "Provide Health Care" is not.

PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE.. IS.

 

[Ravi]

The answer is that the guard is under the control of both the federal and state governments depending upon the purpose of the deployment. There is NO legitimate deployment of the National Guard AGAINST the federal government. That would be treason

Both the State and Federal Government control the Army National Guard. The
Army National Guard force structure consists of Combat, Combat Support and
Combat Service Support units. Approximately 350,000 Soldiers are members of
the Army National Guard.
WHAT IS THE NATIONAL GUARD’S MISSION?
The National Guard has a unique dual mission, with both federal and state
responsibilities. During peacetime, the governor, through a State Adjutant General,
commands National Guard forces. The governor can call the National Guard into
action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, drought, civil
disturbances, and for state active duty missions in support of other natural disasters.
In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard to
participate in federal missions. For example, many Army National Guard units
have deployed to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, units are
currently serving in many locations supporting the war on terrorism. When
federalized, Army National Guard units are commanded by the Combatant
Commander of the area in which they are operating.

http://www.nationalguard.com/downloads/file/223/part8.pdf

Exactly.

Funny thing is ... there are components of the NG that have experience in helping fight drug smuggling. You'd think Brewer would use them in that manner.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Isn't it funny, the freak'n anti government RW Fringe so scared of big gubmint (isn't that how the tea party fringers refer to the Federal Government?) now want Federalized Troops to protect our boarders?

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. "Provide Health Care" is not.

Didn't you know the Commerce Clause covers everything?

 

[jillian]

Actually , state schools were not required by federal law to desegregate until 1964. Seven years AFTER the LR event. As I said, it was federal court order, not a law as you claimed. Do you now neg rep me for pointing out your stupidity and lies yet again?

Not to mention, what does that have to do with the fact that the President took over control of the state guard? is there a provision in there that says it can only be done if a law is broken? Nope

Segregation of public schools was found to be unconstitutional by Brown v Bd of Ed of Topeka Kansas

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Are you referring to desegregation by forced busing?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Isn't it funny, the freak'n anti government RW Fringe so scared of big gubmint (isn't that how the tea party fringers refer to the Federal Government?) now want Federalized Troops to protect our boarders?

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. "Provide Health Care" is not.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

So is to promote the general welfare, preventing and mitigating the effects of disease fits nicely into promoting the general welfare which healthcare provides, as much or more so then defending against unarmed immigrants seeking work, many of whom are women and childern.
Should all aspects of healthcare and prevention be cut from the Federal Budget? Funds such as those which helped Salk develop the polio vaccine, should they be cut too?

 

[Ravi]

I know many would like to blame that on BOOOSH as well, but all that law did really was change some technicalites.. In reality a President has always been able to over ride a governer's command of the national guard.

Probably the greatest example of that fact is Little Rock,AR 1957 when then Governer Orval Faubus decided to defy a federal court order and ordered the Arkansas National Guard deployed to prevent black children from attending Little Rock Central High School. well President Eisenhower certainly didn't care for that, so he countermanded those orders and instead ordered that the Guard make sure those children COULD attend the high school. Guess who's orders the Guard followed?

The NG cannot go against the law you stupid asshole. Desegregation was Federal law...what an idiot you are.

Actually , state schools were not required by federal law to desegregate until 1964. Seven years AFTER the LR event. As I said, it was federal court order, not a law as you claimed. Do you now neg rep me for pointing out your stupidity and lies yet again?

Not to mention, what does that have to do with the fact that the President took over control of the state guard? is there a provision in there that says it can only be done if a law is broken? Nope

Educate yourself:

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, on May 17, 1954. The decision declared all laws establishing segregated schools to be unconstitutional, and it called for the desegregation of all schools throughout the nation.[2]


The NG cannot do something that is unconstitutional.


Yet more proof you were never in the NG.

 

[jillian]

Didn't you know the Commerce Clause covers everything?

I love the pretend constitutionalists who pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

 

[saveliberty]

There is a duality, meaning both of you are right on certain points.

"The Alabama National Guard is comprised of both Army and Air National Guard components. The Constitution of the United States specifically charges the National Guard with dual federal and state missions. In fact, the National Guard is the only United States military force empowered to function in a state status. Those functions range from limited actions during non-emergency situations to full scale law enforcement of Martial Law when local law enforcement officials can
no longer maintain civil control. The National Guard may be called
into federal service in response to a call by the President or Congress.

When National Guard troops are called to federal service, the President serves as Commander-In-Chief. The federal mission assigned to the National Guard is: "To provide properly trained and equipped units for prompt mobilization for war, National emergency or as otherwise needed." The Governor may call individuals or units of the Alabama National Guard into state service during emergencies or to assist in special situations which lend themselves to use of the National Guard. The state mission assigned to the National Guard is: "To provide trained and disciplined forces for domestic emergencies or as otherwise provided by state law." The State Defense force is a military entity authorized by both the State Code of Alabama and Executive Order. The State Defense Force (SDF) is the state’s authorized militia and assumes the state mission of the Alabama National Guard in the event the Guard is mobilized. The SDF is comprised of retired active and reserve military personnel and selected professional persons who volunteer their time and talents in further service to their state."

Find a recruiter

To me, it looks like the National Guard can enforce the law under special circumstances. Who calls them into service depends on what laws are being enforced. The federal government asserts immigration is federal law, so they will determine what happens. Arizona will undoubtedly envoke its rights to deploy the National Guard under the new state law. The courts will sort it out.

 

[ConHog]

The answer is that the guard is under the control of both the federal and state governments depending upon the purpose of the deployment. There is NO legitimate deployment of the National Guard AGAINST the federal government. That would be treason

Both the State and Federal Government control the Army National Guard. The
Army National Guard force structure consists of Combat, Combat Support and
Combat Service Support units. Approximately 350,000 Soldiers are members of
the Army National Guard.
WHAT IS THE NATIONAL GUARD’S MISSION?
The National Guard has a unique dual mission, with both federal and state
responsibilities. During peacetime, the governor, through a State Adjutant General,
commands National Guard forces. The governor can call the National Guard into
action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, drought, civil
disturbances, and for state active duty missions in support of other natural disasters.
In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard to
participate in federal missions. For example, many Army National Guard units
have deployed to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, units are
currently serving in many locations supporting the war on terrorism. When
federalized, Army National Guard units are commanded by the Combatant
Commander of the area in which they are operating.

http://www.nationalguard.com/downloads/file/223/part8.pdf

Yes, I fully understand what the AZ national guard web page says Jillian. I also understand that the President can declare ANYTHING to be under federal jurisdiction and that's that. Just as has been done with the war on drugs, just as what was done with the gulf oil spill. Just as was done in 1957 in LR. So yes, technically a governer has control of her state Guard, but in reality, no she doesn't.

If I am wrong, then why in the five situations I described did NONE of the governors I mentioned simply deploy their national guard without obama's approval and move on? Because they can't.

Same as during Katrina, Bush declared that as a federal disaster area and boom the USNG was under federal authority. Otherwise, why were NG members from multiple states there, the governor of Texas for damn sure doesn't have the authority to deploy troops in Louisiana.

 

[ConHog]

The answer is that the guard is under the control of both the federal and state governments depending upon the purpose of the deployment. There is NO legitimate deployment of the National Guard AGAINST the federal government. That would be treason

Both the State and Federal Government control the Army National Guard. The
Army National Guard force structure consists of Combat, Combat Support and
Combat Service Support units. Approximately 350,000 Soldiers are members of
the Army National Guard.
WHAT IS THE NATIONAL GUARD’S MISSION?
The National Guard has a unique dual mission, with both federal and state
responsibilities. During peacetime, the governor, through a State Adjutant General,
commands National Guard forces. The governor can call the National Guard into
action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, drought, civil
disturbances, and for state active duty missions in support of other natural disasters.
In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard to
participate in federal missions. For example, many Army National Guard units
have deployed to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, units are
currently serving in many locations supporting the war on terrorism. When
federalized, Army National Guard units are commanded by the Combatant
Commander of the area in which they are operating.

http://www.nationalguard.com/downloads/file/223/part8.pdf

Exactly.

Funny thing is ... there are components of the NG that have experience in helping fight drug smuggling. You'd think Brewer would use them in that manner.

Because she can't you idiot. As I have explained to you, the USG has determine that the drug war is under FEDERAL jurisdiction. So yes, the little niceties of calling them under state authorial to avoid violating posse commitataus are observed, but in reality they do no answer to her. Just as I didn't answer to Huckabee etc etc I answered , ultimately , to the DEA.

 

[ConHog]

The NG cannot go against the law you stupid asshole. Desegregation was Federal law...what an idiot you are.

Actually , state schools were not required by federal law to desegregate until 1964. Seven years AFTER the LR event. As I said, it was federal court order, not a law as you claimed. Do you now neg rep me for pointing out your stupidity and lies yet again?

Not to mention, what does that have to do with the fact that the President took over control of the state guard? is there a provision in there that says it can only be done if a law is broken? Nope

Educate yourself:

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, on May 17, 1954. The decision declared all laws establishing segregated schools to be unconstitutional, and it called for the desegregation of all schools throughout the nation.[2]


The NG cannot do something that is unconstitutional.


Yet more proof you were never in the NG.

What the fuck are you babbling about? I said in my original post that Faubas was attempting to get the National Guard to defy a court order, which he was. I didn't say he was right did I? Fact is I personally believe those troops should have refused that order... But that doesn't change the fact that the President took control of the NG.

Jesus Christ you're a liar.




As for my career in the Guard, I've proven my bona fides, neg yourself for lying.



PS lying idiot Ravi

It was. Dubya changed that with the nonsensical Patriot ACTS
Brainwashed sheep will follow any person they point at and say " He's the boss now"
Aye Aye sir.
An American.not murkin........"officer" serving in the Arizona guard, would tell DC to go fuck itself.
BUT.
You're a nation of gutless fools, hence the collapse.

I know many would like to blame that on BOOOSH as well, but all that law did really was change some technicalites.. In reality a President has always been able to over ride a governer's command of the national guard.

Probably the greatest example of that fact is Little Rock,AR 1957 when then Governer Orval Faubus decided to defy a federal court order and ordered the Arkansas National Guard deployed to prevent black children from attending Little Rock Central High School. well President Eisenhower certainly didn't care for that, so he countermanded those orders and instead ordered that the Guard make sure those children COULD attend the high school. Guess who's orders the Guard followed?

The NG cannot go against the law you stupid asshole. Desegregation was Federal law...what an idiot you are.

You CLEARLY originally said law, you said nothing about a court ruling. I proved you wrong. There was no LAW in 1957 mandating that schools desegregate, that didn't happen until 1964. You later tried to play it off like you said court ruling, but there is your lie in black and white...


Liar, neg yourself you piece of shit.

 

[Ravi]

The answer is that the guard is under the control of both the federal and state governments depending upon the purpose of the deployment. There is NO legitimate deployment of the National Guard AGAINST the federal government. That would be treason

Both the State and Federal Government control the Army National Guard. The
Army National Guard force structure consists of Combat, Combat Support and
Combat Service Support units. Approximately 350,000 Soldiers are members of
the Army National Guard.
WHAT IS THE NATIONAL GUARD’S MISSION?
The National Guard has a unique dual mission, with both federal and state
responsibilities. During peacetime, the governor, through a State Adjutant General,
commands National Guard forces. The governor can call the National Guard into
action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, drought, civil
disturbances, and for state active duty missions in support of other natural disasters.
In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard to
participate in federal missions. For example, many Army National Guard units
have deployed to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, units are
currently serving in many locations supporting the war on terrorism. When
federalized, Army National Guard units are commanded by the Combatant
Commander of the area in which they are operating.

http://www.nationalguard.com/downloads/file/223/part8.pdf

Yes, I fully understand what the AZ national guard web page says Jillian. I also understand that the President can declare ANYTHING to be under federal jurisdiction and that's that. Just as has been done with the war on drugs, just as what was done with the gulf oil spill. Just as was done in 1957 in LR. So yes, technically a governer has control of her state Guard, but in reality, no she doesn't.

If I am wrong, then why in the five situations I described did NONE of the governors I mentioned simply deploy their national guard without obama's approval and move on? Because they can't.

Same as during Katrina, Bush declared that as a federal disaster area and boom the USNG was under federal authority. Otherwise, why were NG members from multiple states there, the governor of Texas for damn sure doesn't have the authority to deploy troops in Louisiana.

Because Obama federalized the response to the oil spill...even then, the state's could have deployed their own guard to work on shore. But none of them did because it's bad for tourism.

And no, the governor of LA was always in charge of her own National Guard...this is what led the Bush Administration and the fucktard Republicans to change the law to allow the federal government to take over the duties of a governor...luckily, it was repealed.

 

[ConHog]

The answer is that the guard is under the control of both the federal and state governments depending upon the purpose of the deployment. There is NO legitimate deployment of the National Guard AGAINST the federal government. That would be treason

http://www.nationalguard.com/downloads/file/223/part8.pdf

Yes, I fully understand what the AZ national guard web page says Jillian. I also understand that the President can declare ANYTHING to be under federal jurisdiction and that's that. Just as has been done with the war on drugs, just as what was done with the gulf oil spill. Just as was done in 1957 in LR. So yes, technically a governer has control of her state Guard, but in reality, no she doesn't.

If I am wrong, then why in the five situations I described did NONE of the governors I mentioned simply deploy their national guard without obama's approval and move on? Because they can't.

Same as during Katrina, Bush declared that as a federal disaster area and boom the USNG was under federal authority. Otherwise, why were NG members from multiple states there, the governor of Texas for damn sure doesn't have the authority to deploy troops in Louisiana.

Because Obama federalized the response to the oil spill...even then, the state's could have deployed their own guard to work on shore. But none of them did because it's bad for tourism.

And no, the governor of LA was always in charge of her own National Guard...this is what led the Bush Administration and the fucktard Republicans to change the law to allow the federal government to take over the duties of a governor...luckily, it was repealed.

Wow you are a liar, first you say that Bush federalized the disaster area and so he could send troops from other states in then you say the LA Governor was in charge of her own troops? it's one or the other.

And if as you contend, then why did Jindahl need permission to deploy his own troops this time around?

Oh by the way stupid liar. HR 5122 was never repealed, it does however have a sunset date of 2012.

H.R. 5122 (2006) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

Didn't you know the Commerce Clause covers everything?

I love the pretend constitutionalists who pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

Most haven't read the Constitution; they simply echo the talking points supplied by Limbaugh or Hannity.

 

[ConHog]

Didn't you know the Commerce Clause covers everything?

I love the pretend constitutionalists who pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

Most haven't read the Constitution; they simply echo the talking points supplied by Limbaugh or Hannity.

I'm a conservative who listens to neither of those guys, and I am hardly alone, so why continue with THAT talking point? I mean do all liberals bask in the glory that is Keith Olbermann?

 

[ConHog]

Gotta love THIS irony

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -286 reputation points from Ravi.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
neg rep for lying

Regards,
Ravi