[LexBaird]

As quoted, that would be consistent with the Constitution, since both executing laws and suppressing insurrection are legit reasons for calling the guard into Fed service. Just fighting a remote brush fire, for example, wouldn't qualify. Thus, the quote from Omega is misleading : "The President of the United States will now be able to take control of a states National Guard units without the governors consent." He would not have that power, unless "domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”

It is disturbing on another level, though. Once again, as in the substitution of "authorizing force" instead of "declaring war", it seems the Congress is shirking responsibility. The way the Constitution reads, passing off to the President the decision about when the State authorities have proved incapable gives the Executive the triggering power for calling up the Militia. That power should be directly executed by Congress on a case by case basis.

Same thing with the "Authorization of Force". By passing off the decision to the President, it allows cowards such as Murtha, Kerry, and Clinton to pass off blame when things get tough. I hope future Presidents learn the lesson and demand a straightforward Declaration of War next time the US is threatened. Then, girlie men like Arnie will look foolish for bitching about the equipment being used to defend the US, instead of rusting in depots awaiting the next earthquake.

[redlegplanner]

The difference is that instead of insurrection being the sole cause for using T10 forces (to include Federalized Guard forces), it is now allowed for “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident”.