Bush Seeks to Federalize/Militarize Emergency Response

[Camp David]

The military should only be used for civilian disaster if martial law has been declared, though. In other words, I do not believe they should be used for disaster relief. Its not their job.

I agree, but natural disasters typically require more than state assets can deliver quickly... for example, helicopter rescues typically require a tremendous outlay of equipment, gas, pilots, rescue professionals, etc. (No state currently has these in quantity necessary). THERFORE FED GOV'T NEEDS TO TAKE LEAD!

Relief should come from the state and local government, and the federal government by way of FEMA, not with federal soldiers..

FEMA was not designed to be a first responder! That's what Secretary Brown was saying today... IF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDED RELIEF AS THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO, FEMA STEPS IN LATER! In Florida last year, the state and local government acted correctly, and FEMA backed them up! Ask yourself a question: Why has FEMA performed great so far, such as last year with Florida hurricanes? What was holdup in Louisiana that prevented FEMA from acting? Incompetent state and local leaders!

I can find no power in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to deploy federal troops to a state in the name of disaster relief. If you can find such a reference, please let me know.

First phrase of U.S. Constitution (underlined part) hints at it:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article II, Section. 2 of U.S. Constitution adds detail (underlined part):

"Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

I suppose it varies based on your interpretation of "service of the United States," whether such service involved Armed Forces fighting wars or rescuing citizens! In my opinion, if the Armed Service can save lives, why worry about it?

 

[Derby FALs]

The military is alredy overburdened and we can't afford the size military we would need to fight on two fronts plus disaster relief. Time and again the federal government has proven that its solutions are, in the end, worse than the problem. The States can resolve the problems if the elected leaders are up to snuff. If not, fire them and get another gang of flunkies.

 

[antarti]

Well put

Ask yourself a question: Why has FEMA performed great so far, such as last year with Florida hurricanes? What was holdup in Louisiana that prevented FEMA from acting? Incompetent state and local leaders!

You said it. So the way to fix incompetence is for the other party to barge in?

I would much rather see the corollary: My state governor and reps take over DC in a time of "emergency", since those bozos are totally incompetent.

If you like one, there's no reason not to like the other...

 

[Camp David]

The States can resolve the problems if the elected leaders are up to snuff.

There are quite a few folks in Louisiana that would disagree with you and they can't wait until the next election!

All the liberals are against Bush's proposal, yet they are not surfacing solutions of their own, only to say, ignorantly, that states can take care of themselves! Well, surprise surprise, they can't! Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas just demonstrated their inabilities during Katrina and Rita! Sure you can yell "state independance" as much as you want, but when you are sitting on the roof of your house, such independance isn't worth much!

Perhaps some states can care for their own, but Katrina and Rita showed vast inabilities at the state level! How many body bags will it take before we fix the problem?

 

[NCP24]

Have you guys every read Thomas Jefferson? http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/ He has some very interesting things to say about the militia, right to bear arms and state rights.

Article II, Section. 2 of U.S. Constitution adds detail (underlined part):

"Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

Strange... If one of the reasons behind state militias were to protect the state from a corrupt federal government, then why would you turn around and place it under the very same authority it was meant to safeguard against?

 

[LAR-15]

Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

 

[NMshooter]

It is not so much a question of what sort of federal response there should be, but should there be any federal response at all.

Louisiana had plenty of money, but the state government chose to spend it on other things.

A lot of voters in that state approved of many of those things.

The problem has more to do with the majority of voters demanding bread and circuses than anything else.

Not to say that Louisiana's state government is not one of the most corrupt in the nation, or that there are many others like it. My state is pretty bad too, though a bit limited in scale due to lack of money.

As far as I can tell the voters have been getting what they want for quite a long time, and if what the majority wants is different than what I or anyone else may prefer then we who disagree must fend for ourselves as best as we can.

 

[NCP24]

Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

True, but this isn’t about Bush- its about extending military power on American soil.

 

[Beren]

There is no need to pass sweeping new measures to enhance federal powers.

The system has a natural mechanism for correcting the sort of incompetency we witnessed in September: it's called an election. If the people of Louisiana and New Orleans feel their elected representatives performed competently under the circumstances, they'll re-elect them and deserve what they get. If not, they'll make a change.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

If the president gets the power to send federal troops to any state that he decides is in an emergency, how would you keep him from abusing the power?

What would constitute an emergency? Just natural disasters, or perhaps any civil disorder? Would riots in Seattle over the World Trade Organization be cause to send in US soldiers? What about the Rodney King riots?

I don't see where you could draw the line. It would not make sense to limit this only to natural disasters, as there are many kinds of disasters that would be just as bad.

Think about the Florida election in 2000. What would keep a president from declaring that a disaster, and then sending in federal troops to restore order, and keep counting the ballots until he wins? I would not put this maneuver past someone like Hillary.

Concentrating more power in the hands of a single man is not healthy for a free Republic.

 

[NCP24]

Oooh watch out for the Hillary Beast!!!!!

 

[captain obvious]

Exactly who here thinks this will be the furthest the idea of the domestic use of the military will go? Once they get a smidgen of an idea in their heads - this is a VERY BAD idea.

I've been screaming to anyone who will listen that if we want overseas adventures like the ones we are doing now, we need to stop using NG troops in the way that we do, and make the active duty forces a whole lot bigger. Somehow I don't see us doing that, and this sure ain't gonna help in the short run (not to speak of the long term consequences)/

 

[Augustus]

Maybe the Congress, State Governors, Lt. Governors, AG., Mayors and City Councilmen should be notified that their services would no longer be needed if the President is given these powers.

 

[jashobeam]

Quote:
Article II, Section. 2 of U.S. Constitution adds detail (underlined part):

"Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

I am no expert on the Constitution, and I may be wrong, but it appears that according to the sentence structure in the above quote the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, WHEN [the Militia is] called into the actual Service of the United States.

The word when tells us that the President is NOT ALWAYS in command of the state Militia, but ONLY when the Milita is called into actual Service of the United States. So there still exists, at all times excluding the aforementioned circumstance, separation between the State and Federal levels.

Look, I am not Bush bashing, but I think that Bush could and should have done more but ONLY in the way of showing his concern for the situation by questioning Blanco's judgement and her decision AT THE TIME and urging her with explanations toward better actions.

At best this was lack of communication, but it appears to be incompetence on Blanco's part and nonchalance on Bush's. Either way this was a mistake to be learned from; it is not a reason (excuse) to call for new laws that increase federal powers.

 

[RaggedClaws]

I agree, but natural disasters typically require more than state assets can deliver quickly... for example, helicopter rescues typically require a tremendous outlay of equipment, gas, pilots, rescue professionals, etc. (No state currently has these in quantity necessary). THERFORE FED GOV'T NEEDS TO TAKE LEAD!

Then how about the federal government lend their personnel and materiel to the states when they're in trouble? Increasing federal power is not the answer here, IMHO. If LA officials needed federal help, they should have asked for it in a timely manner. It seems to me that neither the Mayor and Governor exhausted their potential capabilities, they just utterly mismanaged the resources they did have control over.

The system has a natural mechanism for correcting the sort of incompetency we witnessed in September: it's called an election. If the people of Louisiana and New Orleans feel their elected representatives performed competently under the circumstances, they'll re-elect them and deserve what they get. If not, they'll make a change.

Exactly! Well put!

 

[longeyes]

all Federal all the time

FEMA to reimburse faith groups for helping victims Tue Sep 27, 5:40 AM ET



The Federal Emergency Management Agency will reimburse churches and other religious organizations that have provided shelter, food and supplies to the victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The payments with taxpayer money would mark the first time that the government has made such payments to faith-based groups at a time following natural disasters, the newspaper reported, citing FEMA officials.

FEMA is a division within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

According to the article, religious groups that operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state and local governments in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama would be eligible.

Rita, packing winds of 120 miles per hour (193 kph), struck the Gulf Coast over the weekend. Katrina came ashore in Louisiana on August 29, killed more than 1,000 people and caused as much as an estimated $200 billion in economic losses.

Reimbursements would cover a "wide range of costs," FEMA spokesman Eugene Kinerney was quoted as saying.

Kinerney said they would include "labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water," the report said.

The policy was outlined in a September 9 internal memorandum, titled "Eligible Costs for Emergency Sheltering Declarations."

Under the policy, religious groups, like secular nonprofit groups, will be required to document their costs and file for reimbursement from state and local emergency management agencies, which in turn will seek funds from FEMA, the report said.

The report cited a FEMA official in Louisiana as saying it is too early to know how many groups will seek reimbursement under the new program.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

FEMA to reimburse faith groups for helping victims Tue Sep 27, 5:40 AM ET

If I was a faith group that provided relief, I would not seek reimbursement from the federal government.

If reimbursement catches on, it will be only a short time before the federal government decides that if a church accepts federal money, it is subjet to federal regulation.

Its difficult for any organization, including churches, to turn down what appears to be free money. I think churches will lose autonomy by accepting these funds.

As things are right now, if the Baptist church sets up a relief shelter, they are free to conduct it in tha manner they see fit. If they want to witness to the people there, or preach a sermon, or whatever, they can do it. If the government gets involved in the funding, they are pretty quickly going to shut that part down.

 

[Stauble]

it looks good on paper, but i smell a rat

 

[longeyes]

To me, reimbursement implies that one is acting as an authorized agent thereof.

More and more we are all being construed as "agents" of the Federal realm.

Two hundred years after throwing over monarchy and this...? Worrisome, very worrisome.

 

[RomanKnight]

Every organization that claims "tax-exempt status" -501(c)-3 -type is subject to federal rule. Including churches. Indirect control, but control nevertheless.
OTOH, why can't "faith groups" ask for a piece of the pie, just like other organizations? How many "non-faith" want money (to cover expenses, replanish funds, vacation in Jamaica, whatever) from fed.gov? Why not churches? The non-existent in the Constitution "separation of church and state" doesn't pay any bills for the churches who genuinely helped, so, why can't they recover costs, like everyone else?

 

[dustind]

I couldn't let the irony of the situation to pass without commenting on the hypocrisy some Bush haters will stoop to.

There is no irony. You basically have two groups at play here. One group, the Democrats, having screwed up at the state level make the only move they can make, blaming Bush at the Federal level. The Democrats where wrong, and Bush should have called them on it, but instead he decided to take the blame for something he was not responsible for. He then came up with a stupid idea. His stupid idea is what the second group, the "pro freedom types," are blaming him for.

In politics you will always have someone complaining no matter what, but when you do something stupid you end up with many more people complaining for a good reason. That is what we are witnessing now.