Well, I see that you have regurgitated your earlier statements...this time without the footnote upon which you previously relied....something akin to revisionist history I suppose.. or possibly rivaling the slight of hand of Houdini. The footnote contained references to the briefs of the parties to the litigation, and were incorporated by reference into the court's ruling. I suppose it is probably convenient for you to turn a blind eye to the foot note that you previously cited when it does not support your position, but it really does not accurately reflect the ruling when you do. You can not separate the court's ruling from the footnote in the ruling which explains it.

The foot note which you previously cited clearly indicates that as the Governor admitted the residual gubernatorial veto of a federal activation was of little use and depended upon his ability to persuade the federal government that there was a conflicting state emergency. I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but the court indicated the gubernatorial veto is a matter of a federal accommodation to the states...not an absolute right. Did I say it clearly enough this time? Furthermore, the veto can not frustrate national security of foreign policy objectives. It is my understanding that the remark that sparked this issue was that the Alaskan Air National Guard is our first line of defense against Russia... the implication being national defense  However, I see that you now want to characterize these other "circumstances" as having nothing to do with the matter, and that you now want to focus on the training activation at issue. Since you have conceded your position on those other "circumstances", that would seem to simplify things.

The foot note which you would like to forget clearly indicates that the gubernatorial veto to a federal activation for training is effective in those cases where the federal activation is so intrusive as to deny the state its ability entirely to train guardsmen for state purposes. In his brief the Governor admitted that this is rarely if ever a problem which would justify the veto...of little use, and still subject to the burden of persuasion of the Federal government.

Apologies are not in order, but perhaps your visit to an optometrist might be.