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.

 OK...so here's the footnote:

The Montgomery Amendment deprives the Governors of the power to veto participation in a National Guard of the United States training mission on the basis of any objection to "the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such active duty." 10 U.S.C. 672(f). Governors may withhold their consent on other grounds. The Governor and the United States agree that if the federalization of the Guard would interfere with the State Guard's ability to address a local emergency, that circumstance would be a valid basis for a gubernatorial veto. Brief for Petitioners 41; Brief for Respondents 9. (emphasis mine).

This is STILL not inconsistent with my prior statement, which is that a governor may veto a federal deployment under certain circumstances.  However, I enlarged the relevant portion of the text so that the gentleman from Connecticut will have no trouble seeing that it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with federal activation for training, but rather EMERGENCY READINESS, and that such a veto would in fact be considered valid.

Would you like a cup of coffee with that serving of humble pie?