I Didn't Think State;s Could Do This

She can do whatever she wants with the national guard unless and until they are activated and put on active duty. If the feds activate them then there is not a thing she can do to make them do anything.

Texas is ready


> She can do whatever she wants with the national guard unless and until they are activated and put on active duty. If the feds activate them then there is not a thing she can do to make them do anything.

wasn't it the Feds that activated them in the first place that put them there?

> wasn't it the Feds that activated them in the first place that put them there?

I don't think so and if it was she wouldn't have any authority to withdraw them.

*Grisham's order covers most of New Mexico's deployed troops as well as troops from Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Wisconsin who had been deployed at the border. *

They were already deployed from multiple states.

But that doesn't say who ordered them there. It could be that they are there because they were sent there by the governors of each of those states, though even if that was the case she has no power to order the national guard of other states to leave a specific area. I read the article and it seems to me that the author simply doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Unfortunately that's not an uncommon problem in what passes for journalism these days, particularly on Yahoo where they seem to pick their featured stories more on their political point of view rather than the quality of their writing. Ever wonder why half of the stories on the homepage are from Huffington or buzzfeed, or similar left leaning sources?

in checking a few other sites found this:
New Mexico sent National Guard troops to the border last April in an order from then-Gov. Susana Martinez that followed [a White House proclamation]('https://www.npr.org/2018/04/04/599436746/president-trump-to-sign-proclamation-to-send-national-guard-troops-to-mexican-bo'). At least [five states]('https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621446245/opposing-family-separation-governors-cancel-national-guard-troops-on-the-border'), including two led by Republicans, rejected the president's call to send troops, with Maryland's Gov. Larry Hogan saying his state wanted nothing to do with the Trump administration policy of separating families at the border.

If you click on the hyperlink titled "a White House proclamation - you get this:
[President Trump Signs Proclamation To Send National Guard Troops To Mexican Border]('https://www.npr.org/2018/04/04/599436746/president-trump-to-sign-proclamation-to-send-national-guard-troops-to-mexican-bo')

*"President Trump signed a proclamation Wednesday for the deployment of National Guard troops along the Southern border with Mexico in a bid to cut down on illegal immigration.

Kirstjen Nielsen, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said earlier in the day that Trump's order would direct her department and the Pentagon to work with governors of the states along the Southwestern border."*

which would seem to indicate that they were deployed by the Feds...

I tried googling:
can states withdraw national guard troops deployed by the federal government

And no real concerte answer came up.
**

Deployed and activated are two different things. The phrase "* Trump's order would direct her department and the Pentagon to work with governors of the states along the Southwestern border." *indicates to me that it's was a request, if the unit were "activated" there would be no need "*work with governors of the states."* Once a unit is activated it is under the direct control of the pentagon and can be sent anywhere, Afghanistan, Iraq or New Mexico. The other thing that makes me think that they were not activated is the small number of troops. Activation involves fairly large numbers of troops even if its just at the company level. One company usually consists of several hundred troops.

Numbers will vary depending on the units' mission. US Army infantry battalions usually had four companies and approx. 800 total soldiers. My artillery battalion had five batteries but only about 600 soldiers. But 118 soldiers? they were probably just in specialties such as ground surveillance radar or even water purification.

the more I devel into this - the more confused I get...........

try this one on:
[Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard]('https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/12/governors-lose-in-power-struggle-over-national-guard/')

Just tried looking into tis a little deeper and there seems to be a confusion of the terms "deployment" and "activation." Right now I'm not too sure of who is in control, the Feds or the state. But I do know that if the feds are in control there is nothing any governor can do to order the guard around.

> the more I devel into this - the more confused I get...........

try this one on:
[Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard]('https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/12/governors-lose-in-power-struggle-over-national-guard/')

Read it and it just doesn't seem to apply to the situation we were talking about.

there was this:
[INDENT]*Under the U.S. Constitution, each state’s National Guard unit is controlled by the governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the president.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so.*[/INDENT]

So what did Congress do to avoid this requirement? With the stroke of a pen, they just changed the requirement of the insurrection act to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident”
====================
There doesn't seem to be much of a clear cut answer.

Deploy & activate where being used interchangeably in every story I found - but nothing that stated (clearly) that a State could override a Presidential Directive regarding the National Guard.
If the above is true (So what did Congress do...) it would seem the Feds would have control of NG troops in New Mexico by declaring it a National Emergency/Terrorist Attack or Incident - which he seems to be doing - no?

I'm going to end the *"deep dive"* here.............

Interesting Read (at least I thought so - your mileage may differ):
[Can President Trump legally send troops to the border? It’s complicated. Critics argue the move would violate the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. One problem: There is no 1878 Posse Comitatus Act.]('https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/17/can-president-trump-legally-send-troops-to-the-border-its-complicated/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8316d8903871')

> I'm going to end the *"deep dive"* here.............

Interesting Read (at least I thought so - your mileage may differ):
[Can President Trump legally send troops to the border? It’s complicated. Critics argue the move would violate the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. One problem: There is no 1878 Posse Comitatus Act.]('https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/17/can-president-trump-legally-send-troops-to-the-border-its-complicated/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8316d8903871')

I'm with you, lets just let it rest. But one last comment, even if the posse comitatus act does exist it in no way constrains the president from enforcing border security, it just constrains the armed forces from enforcing domestic law. Now we can argues whether entering the country illegally is a violation of domestic law or not, but I'll leave that for another day.

of course it's a violation of domestic law.......