- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
When Kathy Hochul
Posted on 8/27/25 at 8:37 am
Posted on 8/27/25 at 8:37 am
Sent the NG into the subways did anyone, democrat or republican, politician or citizen claim a “military occupation”? Why so different now?
5
Posted on 8/27/25 at 8:44 am to tiger1616
That's uh... (D)ifferent
Posted on 8/27/25 at 8:49 am to tiger1616
quote:
When Kathy Hochul
Well, the NG she utilized was in a Title 32 status and under her control, which is the way it is supposed to work... It was also on her State's dime as well...
quote:
Why so different now?
If POTUS sends NG in without the request of a governor, they will be in a Title 10 status which makes them subject to the same rules concerning the deployment of Active Duty forces in response to a CONUS event...
Since he hasn't done this it is all just a bunch of hand wringing and wailing and gnashing of teeth to give them something else to scream OMB about...
Posted on 8/27/25 at 8:53 am to tiger1616
Because the governor has the authority to call in the National Guard.
Posted on 8/27/25 at 8:59 am to idlewatcher
quote:
That's uh... (D)ifferent(rump)
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:01 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Because the governor has the authority to call in the National Guard.
Sure. That's why they didn't complain then but are now.
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:02 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Because the governor has the authority to call in the National Guard.
So does the President - Kennedy issued Executive Order 11053 to provide “assistance for the removal of unlawful obstructions of justice in the State of Mississippi” in relation to integration of the University of Mississippi. The entire Mississippi National Guard (Army and Air) was placed on active federal service on the same day.
The president controls the National Guard in specific circumstances: he is the sole commander of the D.C. National Guard, can "federalize" state National Guard units for federal missions under Title 10 authority, and can operate under Title 32 authority to direct state Guard units in federal-funded missions while still under state command. However, state governors maintain control of their state National Guards for state-level operations.
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:03 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Because the governor has the authority to call in the National Guard.
POTUS has the authority to do so as well...
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:04 am to tiger1616
Obama sent the guard to DC when the police lost control of the vermin during the summer of love. No one complained, much less called him a dictator.
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:05 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
much less called him a dictator.
Black Jesus, a dictator? You expect them to call out their messiah?
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:07 am to tiger1616
Difference being she is the governor of the state.
How was that even confusing?
How was that even confusing?
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:08 am to AGGIES
quote:
Difference being she is the governor of the state. How was that even confusing?
The part where it was defined as a military occupation. How is that even confusing?
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:10 am to The Maj
Thanks, but isn’t this generally preceded by a request from the governor? Wasn’t that a big issue during Katrina? GWB didn’t send the Guard because KBB didn’t ask?
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:10 am to BBONDS25
The concept of state rights is not confusing to me at all. I’ve taken a high school level government class.
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:17 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Thanks, but isn’t this generally preceded by a request from the governor?
The governor does not have to request anyone to activate their NG under State Active Duty... There are also interstate compacts that allow NG from other States to deploy to an affected State at the request of the governor... The issue here is funding and in a scenario like this, the State picks up all the costs of the SAD...
Now, if a governor requests assistance from the federal level, there is a funding option that will allow NG to maintain their Title 32 status but be funded by the federal government...
This does not preclude a POTUS from sending in Title 10 troops or activating the NG under Title 10 for an event OR in order to uphold Federal Law or protect Federal Assets...
Katrina is not a good example because it was a cluster frick all the way around... However, Title 10 troops were sent to MS and LA by GWB to manage the Federal Response since FEMA was floundering so bad ala 1st Army and LTG Russel L Honore... Honore did not have control of any of the Title 32 NG that was employed and he fricked a lot of things up trying to take control as well...
Also, a lot of things changed after Katrina when it comes to funding and interstate compacts...
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:21 am to AGGIES
who is the governor of Washington DC?
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:25 am to idlewatcher
quote:
That's uh... (D)ifferent
Yeah, no skyscreaming from liberal politicians and their controlled 'sheeple'.
Funny how that was nothing right.
Naturally, they will try to pivot and say --- 'It was ENTIRELY within the right of the Governor to send those troops'
If it had been a Republican governor, you would have heard the same thing they are saying now.
The rules are easy -- just no rules for Democrats.
Posted on 8/27/25 at 9:26 am to Vacherie Saint
It’s not a state. So there is no governor.
But I didn’t comment on Washington DC since Washington DC is not the topic of the thread, so that’s irrelevant.
Apples to Oranges.
But I didn’t comment on Washington DC since Washington DC is not the topic of the thread, so that’s irrelevant.
Apples to Oranges.
Posted on 8/27/25 at 10:34 am to AGGIES
Not to you specifically but the whole thread for the actual law.
Eat shite Marxists
quote:
10 U.S.C. § 252: Permits the President to deploy troops unilaterally to any state to suppress insurrections, domestic violence, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies that make it impracticable to enforce federal laws. This clause does not require state consent. 10 U.S.C. § 253: Authorizes deployment to any state where insurrection, domestic violence, or conspiracies result in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect those rights. This also does not require state consent.
Eat shite Marxists
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News