The Coalition of the Swilling

Anyone who defends a faulty position so vehemently, is obviously deep in it. Very good article THS.

Excellent post, THS! More and more, what I am reading tells me that:

1. The city of NO kinda sorta tried to do something right, but only in a half-assed, "What, me worry?" manner.

2. The state of Louisiana didn't make a serious attempt to do their job. They likely went through the motions, not really understanding the National Response Plan, let along whatever Louisiana had for their own Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP).

3. The Federal goverment did at least an adequate job. I'm not saying "outstanding" simply because my experiences with disaster responses tells me that there will be screw ups. The only question is, "Who really made the mistakes?"

What a lot of people do not understand about the National Response Plan, the CEMPs put out by a state, and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, is that these attempt to make contradictory laws and regulations work for multi-jurisdictional incidents, and not inhibit mutual aid.

For example, by "contradictory laws", I refer to the act that formed FEMA, the Posse Comitatus Act and the Constitution of the United States.

All of this ranting by Blanco and Senator Landrieu is exactly that: ranting. Blanco screwed the pooch in a major way, and all of this is a smoke screen to cover her tusch.

The only legal way (that I see) to resolve this issue is to enact new legislation that allows the President of the United States to unilaterally pre-empt the sovereignity of a state if, in the opinion of the President, the State is not following their own CEMP closely enough.

That's exactly what all of the lefties have been scream about all along (i.e., the erosion of civil liberties, and Bush trying to build an empire). So, tell me, all youse people complaining about Bush's response to Katrina....would you be willing to relinquish state powers in the manner that I describe above?

[crickets chirping]

I thought so!

And for the record -- I am not so willing. We have a disaster response system, and it works. The state and local leadership merely needs to take it seriously. Based on the survey above, I'd say that (37/52)*100 = 71.2% take it seriously. What say the remaining 28.8%, hmmmmmmm?

And thoroughly enlightening comment, JeffS!

Jeff Goldstein over at Protein Wisdom made a similar comment, in response to some airhead leftie on his web site. I congratulate myself that he and I had similar thought processes although separated by time and space.

A Vulcan mind meld, as it were?

New York didn't answer either. Great...

A Vulcan mind meld? Only if I can meld with this Vulcan.

ACK!!!! Your mind is MELTing from the heat...

(At least we're not back to the Kirstie Alley brouhaha...)

Yeah, who'd have thought that a Vulcan chick could transform into a Hutt?

Ko cha tiaa ni chi chopa, Kirk!

Huuuuuuutttttttttt!

Oh, come on, THS! We are discussing a Vulcan mind meld here. I'm only interested in her mind. Honest!

"The only legal way (that I see) to resolve this issue is to enact new legislation that allows the President of the United States to unilaterally pre-empt the sovereignity of a state if, in the opinion of the President, the State is not following their own CEMP closely enough."

And Congress would get the power to grant such authority to the President by legislation from...where, exactly? They already granted the President the authority to unilaterally federalize the National Guard under the Insurrection Act, relying on their express powers in Article I, s. 8, "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; [and] provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". But there's nothing in there about the federal government depriving the CIVILIAN officials of a state of their sovereign powers, nor (I would suggest) should there be.

There's a real lack of understanding, both in the country and especially, it seems, in the media, of the basics of American federalism. The federal government is one of limited, specifically enumerated powers: if it's not in the federal constitution, they can't do it. The states, by contrast, are the general repository of their people's sovereignty, capable of exericising plenary "polce powers," i.e., they can do anything they are not specifically FORBIDDEN from doing, either by valid federal law or by their own state constitutions.

Yes, Dave, you're correct. I suppose that the Constitution could be amended to make this possible, but as you note, that would violate the principles of American federalism.

But some people (and the media) are behaving as though Bush should have such authorities. God knows why. But it's clear that they ain't thinking things through whilst in fit of hysteria. Again.