Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hsalaw; All

The Utah National Guard is being sent to another state to secure the border. I have a bunch of questions about the way that this shady operation is being executed. Isn't it unconstitutional to send the National Guard into another state if the guard has not been federalized? Who is in charge of these troops? Utah's Governor or the governor of the border state in which the troops are placed? Since these national guard troops are citizens of Utah wouldn't they have to be under the control of the Governor of Utah and not the governor of the border state?


27 posted on 06/03/2006 10:17:18 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: old republic

Someone with much more knowledge than I can answer this, but my supposition is that because it's the "national" guard, it's under federal jurisdiction to some extent. And once deployed, I would also suppose that the guard comes under the control of whoever is in charge of the mission. All just guesswork on my part, however; someone else will know for sure.


33 posted on 06/03/2006 10:33:39 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: old republic

You silly boy! You actually think that the U.S. Constitution means anything?


48 posted on 06/04/2006 3:56:28 AM PDT by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: old republic
Isn't it unconstitutional to send the National Guard into another state if the guard has not been federalized? Who is in charge of these troops? Utah's Governor or the governor of the border state in which the troops are placed?

Nope, not unconstitutional at all. The two governors simply work out an agreement with each other. Most states have some sort of reciprocal agreement with their neighboring states already, so that in the event of natural disaster they can request NG troops from their neighbors.

Usually, the way it works is that the troops are attached to a local unit, which means that the local unit is responsible for supporting them but has no UCMJ authority over them. That's very, very typical for relatively short-term deployments.

50 posted on 06/04/2006 4:05:32 AM PDT by Terabitten (The only time you can have too much ammunition is when you're swimming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: old republic
"The Utah National Guard is being sent to another state to secure the border. I have a bunch of questions about the way that this shady operation is being executed. Isn't it unconstitutional to send the National Guard into another state if the guard has not been federalized? Who is in charge of these troops? Utah's Governor or the governor of the border state in which the troops are placed? Since these national guard troops are citizens of Utah wouldn't they have to be under the control of the Governor of Utah and not the governor of the border state?"

You have some very good questions. The Utah National Guard has been run ragged of late and the guys are tired and overworked. Among their many challenges has been the problem of selecting men to serve in Iraq/Afghanistan with other guard units -- these soldiers have literally become lost orphans in the paperwork, etc. -- not watched over by the guard unit the've been sent to and lost from the Utah Guard. I'll be talking with a guard member later today and will definetly ask their opinion on this latest escapade. These guys and gals love serving their country and were very happy to help out after the hurricane. They do what they're asked to do whether well-equipped or not, whether armed or not. I love 'em.

54 posted on 06/04/2006 4:25:47 AM PDT by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson