So how did the destruction of New Orleans happen?

[Kull]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The notion that "by default" all powers not vested in the federal government fall to the states is highly, highly specious, and highly contested. Because the constitution is a deliberately vague document, the scope of federal and state powers is also vague, and subject to the ongoing adjudication of the courts.

I would disagree that the Constitution is "vague" or that Federal Power arising from anything other than the Constitution is "specious". It is true that both State and Federal governments contest their respective powers in the courts, but few would disgree that the broad outlines of both Federal and State power have become well established over the past two centuries.

To that effect, what we are discussing here is the specific issue of which governmental entity has operational control over preparedness for natural disasters. In this case, as demonstrated by the actions of the respective entities during previous natural disasters, that role lies with the States. To my knowledge, there is no instance of the Federal Government attempting to take this power from the states, nor they using the courts to fob it off on the Feds.

If anything, given New Orleans' status as one of the country's largest ports, the Interstate Commerce Clause could be used to cover this.

And well it might. However, no Federal Government - be it Democrat or Republican - has ever chosen to do so.

As for your "give me one example": okay. Hurricane Camille: Nixon sent upwards of 1,000 federal troops to Mississippi to impose martial law and maintain the dusk-to-dawn curfew. And that's just off the top of my head.

That's true, but it's not germane to this discussion, since Nixon's actions took place after Camille, not before. If you refer to my opening post, I specifically referred to governemt powers during the pre-disaster period.

Sorry to seem rude, but you're weighing in here as if you're some kind of constitutional scholar, and it's not at all apparent that you know what you're talking about.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'm fairly familiar with the document. It's obvious that you disagree with my analysis, but that should never preclude an honest weighing of your opponents thesis.

[Kull]

Originally posted by techumseh


Paul, Paul, Paul. Welcome to the jungle.

And me without my machete....

[Pekka]

Weird times we live in. I think it's self evident the time to take strong leadership role has gone by already. But maybe something can be still done. The utmost importance should be to take up and go to New Orleans right now. No not tomorrow, not in 2 hours, now, just order someone to take few clothes and some food to the chopper. That's it.

Because, the people in desperation are on the edge. On the edge of joining the anarchy. As a result of that, lots of people will die, either from violence, lack of medical supplies, or prolonged situation.

Now is the time when they need all the help they need, emotional one. And that starts from leader going in there, stating that we are here, we won't go away, we know this situation, we are going to rescue everyone, help is on the way, we have ordered everyone here and no expenses saved, so everyone should save their strength, help each other and wait for few seconds more!

THis is the message they need to see and hear. It's the only counter to the growing social breakdowns. Vital, important. Saves lives it does.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

[SIZE=1]
That's true, but it's not germane to this discussion, since Nixon's actions took place after Camille, not before. If you refer to my opening post, I specifically referred to governemt powers during the pre-disaster period.

My mistake, I misread your first post. My bad. It is true that Federal law (though not the Constitution; the governing legislation is the Reagan-era Stafford Act) prevents FEMA from taking an active role in mobilization prior to an emergency. But no one's talking about that (unless maybe Che is; I can't recall). The big issue is whether the Feds did all that they could have to care for the infrastructure for which they are traditionally reponsible, like the levees and the pumping system. Apparently, they didn't -- and they could have.

[Dis]

check out this article about protecting the Louisiana coast.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/

[Dis]

and is it reasonable to blame only president Bush? It seems to me the mayor of New Orleans and Louisiana governor deserve a large part of the blame. I wasn't impressed by their actions. They should have asked the feds for help earlier. I guess they thought they could handle it themselves...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Dis
and is it reasonable to blame only president Bush? It seems to me the mayor of New Orleans and Louisiana governor deserve a large part of the blame. I wasn't impressed by their actions. They should have asked the feds for help earlier. I guess they thought they could handle it themselves...

More the governor than the mayor, since the governor is the one empowered by the Stafford Act (see my previous post) to ask the Feds to intervene.

[Kull]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

My mistake, I misread your first post. My bad.

Thanks. You are a gentleman, sir.

It is true that Federal law (though not the Constitution; the governing legislation is the Reagan-era Stafford Act) prevents FEMA from taking an active role in mobilization prior to an emergency.

I suspect it's no accident that FEMA was not tasked with Pre-disaster control. It would have exceeded the "understood" division of powers between the Feds and the states. Had Congress arrogated this power to itself, we would surely have seen a battle in the courts.

But no one's talking about that (unless maybe Che is; I can't recall).

In this thread, that's true. But other of the Katrina threads include posts castigating the Federal Government's predisaster failure, and I felt it would be useful to shed some light there.

The big issue is whether the Feds did all that they could have to care for the infrastructure for which they are traditionally reponsible, like the levees and the pumping system. Apparently, they didn't -- and they could have.

I previously offered my theory as to why the Army Corps of Engineers didn't "Cat5-proof" the levees, so I won't revisit that here. (Although you are welcome to challenge my analysis.) But as for caring and maintaining the systems AFTER they were built by the ACoE, I strongly suspect that role was taken on by the city or parish. In which case, once again, the Feds are not technically liable for any maintenance related failures.

This has been a most enjoyable discussion, but alas it's late and I must seek the refuge of the covers. Good night.

[Dis]

Is it healthy to be watching New Orleans coverage the entire day? I'm obsessed with it. Yes saddened by it. It almost makes me want to commit suicide. I feel so bad. I felt the same way with 9/11 coverage.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kull
There's a lot of fingerpointing at the US Federal Govt about this whole disaster, but hopefully I can shed some light on the pre-storm accusations:

First of all, the US Constitution is quite specific about Federal versus State powers. In the case of preparing a city for a storm - to include emergency plans, evacuation orders, and postioning of the National Guard - almost everything is in the hands of state and local officials (the only exception being some limited coordination tasks and prepping of federally controlled institutions). The Federal Government may not - by law - intervene or countermand any of this. The Feds can only get involved after-the-fact, and even then only in the event of a disaster.

With respect to Army Corps of Engineer funding, again some perspective is in order. Do you have any idea how many different projects and tasks they support in the US? Well, neither do I! But it's pretty darn large, and they can't possibly take on all the project requests that come across their desks. To fully fund a New Orleans Levee project that would save the city from a Cat 5 Hurricane would necessitate the cancelltion of scores of efforts in other states. And here's the dirty little secret - that would be political suicide. Supporting the 2 senators from Louisiana at the cost of infuriating 20 others is simply not how things get done in this country. If you think I exaggerate, just look at the frenzy over BRAC - it turns out that every military base in the US is absolutely CRITICAL to the safety of our nation....well, at least according to the local Senator. And the same would be true of an attempt to spend ACoE funds in a truly need-based fashion.

For those who insist on playing the Iraq card (i.e "we could have spent the war money to save New Orleans"), all I can say is that the same need was there during 8 years of the Clinton Administration - with as booming an economy as we've seen and no wars to speak of anywhere.....and did we spend that surplus on a massive NO levvee system? Hell no. So stop pointing political fingers unless you want to aim 'em at both parties (in which case I might join you).

Just keep in mind that human nature is such that we don't make huge changes in our lives or our policies unless some kind of disaster strikes. Would the TSA have ever passed Congress if not for 9-11? Would the US have raced for the moon without Sputnik? Would the Dutch have built the Ostershelte (sp?) Project without the 1953 flood? Would the French have built the Maginot line without 1914? You know the answers.

As to how well the Feds are doing in the post disaster phase.....well, that's a different subject. But again, be aware that their tasks are complicated tremendously by the constitutional constraints imposed upon the State-Federal relationship.

BS

You're making excuses for lack of Federal action based on states rights issues? Horrible.

The President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world. When **** hits the fan, bureaucracy rules and traditions be damned.

This is beyond the state of an emergency and emergency action needs to happen without all this red tape BS you're talking about.

If Bush can fly into Baghdad he can certainly get his ass on the ground when his country needs him the most.

[Ted Striker]

At the very least, at least the Mayor got most of his people out of the city, this could have been much worse, as sad as it is now.

[TheStinger]

The excuse for not preventing widespead death on the basis that the constitution prevents it would I think cause some consternation from the people who wrote it.

Its a great example of why lawyers should be locked in cupboards and only let out if they promise to be useful.

[molly bloom]

God did it because of the surpassing wickedness of the people.

It's believed there's at least one gay man in New Orleans, and a couple of prostitutes.


There, I've purged my Pat Robertson feeling for the day. Now I can go back to feeling sympathy for my fellow human beings left in a disaster zone.

I feel very sorry for the policewoman from New Orleans who was over here taking part in a fund raising run for the victims of July 7th's bombings in London. No good deed goes unpunished...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dis
Is it healthy to be watching New Orleans coverage the entire day? I'm obsessed with it. Yes saddened by it. It almost makes me want to commit suicide. I feel so bad. I felt the same way with 9/11 coverage.

Ironically, the best story I have seen so far was covered by "A Current Affair."

They sent back one of the reporters that grew up in New Orleans, and she went back around town on a small boat, and saw her whole town destroyed, her old high school football field covered by 6 feet of water.

They were scooping up people along the way who hadn't seen any police, National Guard, etc.

The story about the lonely old lady and her dog at the Superdome was heartbreaking, I'm glad they got her out of there, and it sucks that so many people are still left behind.

[Ted Striker]

.