WH signing statement-like objection: 6000 troops 4 SW border requirement would "unduly interfere" w/

[kpete]

Charlie Savage just tweeted this:
"WH defense bill SAP has signing statement-like objection: 6000 troops 4 SW border requirement would "unduly interfere" w/ commander in chief"

The SAP is the attached Statement of Administrative Policy, which says, in part:

"National Guard Deployment to Secure the Southwest Border: The Administration strongly
objects to Section 1041, which the Administration would construe to require the Secretary of Defense to authorize the funding for deployment, under title 32, United States Code, of at least 6,000 National Guard personnel to undertake operations such as constructing fences and border checkpoints, surveying the border, and providing radio communication interoperability among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, until the Secretary, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Governors of the border states, certifies to Congress that the Federal Government has achieved “operational control” of the border. The legislation would unduly interfere with the President’s role as Commander in Chief with respect to the management of the Total Force. The Administration continues to pursue a comprehensive, multi-layered, targeted approach to law enforcement and security on the southwest border. Within this approach, the National Guard will be utilized to meet specific, requirements-based needs where they can implement missions using their unique capabilities."

more:
http://www.democrats.com/did-the-president-just-pre-signing-statement-a-bill

[vaberella]

1. I'm with the admin on this. However I fear the Neo-Nazis running things now though. n/t

[geek tragedy]

2. That is an appropriate use of the signing statement

(not all of his signing statements have been on such solid ground of course).

Congress does not have the authority to order troop deployments to specific areas.