Should the Federal government come to the rescue of a distressed State?

[her209]

With the fatal tornadoes in AL in the last couple of weeks, President Obama directed the Federal government to provide aid to the affected areas after the state declared a state of emergency.

Now it looks like the Mississippi River will be flooding areas of Memphis, TN and possibly Baton Rouge and New Orleans, LA pretty soon here.

Should Obama again overstep the powers explicitly granted to him and the Federal government by the Constitution and provide aid to them as well or leave the afflicted states to deal with it on their own?

Closest thing I found in the US Constitution:

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

But it only applies in cases of foreign invaders and insurrections.

 

[spidey07]

That was kinda the whole purpose for forming the Union, so yes.

I'm sure there was some law that formed FEMA, you could find the details there possibly.

 

[a777pilot]

The only correct answer is is : Yes, and No.

There, I am happy to have cleared that up for you.

 

[soundforbjt]

Since they are Red states, NO.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, you won't gain any traction with Righties by asking the question, because Red Staters happily accept whatever assistance they can get while biting the hand providing it. Holding contradictory beliefs is largely what makes 'em who they are.

Having said that, I think that the general welfare clause covers the situation and a lot of others. Righties accept only the parts of the proposition that suit their own purposes, unfortunately.

 

[wuliheron]

You know, at one time the state of Virginia sterilized people like you just to make sure they didn't breed.

 

[Blackjack200]

That was kinda the whole purpose for forming the Union, so yes.

I'm sure there was some law that formed FEMA, you could find the details there possibly.

Completely agree. They should continue to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

 

[Capt Caveman]

OP - you don't believe the federal government should help it's citizens against natural disasters?

 

[spidey07]

Completely agree. They should continue to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

The federal government is beholden to the States. They shouldn't roll in take over, but if a state asks for assistance then it's the duty of the fed to respond. Similar to how a state has to ask for nation guard help.

And that's pretty much how it is today. The state governor has to declare some kind of emergency and request assistance.

 

[spidey07]

OP - you don't believe the federal government should help it's citizens against natural disasters?

He's trying to play gotcha with conservatives.

 

[Blackjack200]

The federal government is beholden to the States. They shouldn't roll in take over, but if a state asks for assistance then it's the duty of the fed to respond. Similar to how a state has to ask for nation guard help.

And that's pretty much how it is today. The state governor has to declare some kind of emergency and request assistance.

That's right, and they provide assistance under the general welfare clause.

 

[mizzou]

Ive heard some real nasty things about fema still lately

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, you won't gain any traction with Righties by asking the question, because Red Staters happily accept whatever assistance they can get while biting the hand providing it. Holding contradictory beliefs is largely what makes 'em who they are.

Having said that, I think that the general welfare clause covers the situation and a lot of others. Righties accept only the parts of the proposition that suit their own purposes, unfortunately.

There is this imaginary concept of the general welfare clause. Without being able to find an actual example, they effectively claim the Constitution gives the government absolute power to do anything by making an appeal to the preamble. Levees have long been considered a public work, something which has an established and specific meaning. Might want to read up on that.

 

[Atreus21]

With the fatal tornadoes in AL in the last couple of weeks, President Obama directed the Federal government to provide aid to the affected areas after the state declared a state of emergency.

Now it looks like the Mississippi River will be flooding areas of Memphis, TN and possibly Baton Rouge and New Orleans, LA pretty soon here.

Should Obama again overstep the powers explicitly granted to him and the Federal government by the Constitution and provide aid to them as well or leave the afflicted states to deal with it on their own?

Closest thing I found in the US Constitution:

Article IV, Section 4:



But it only applies in cases of foreign invaders and insurrections.

I think you may be overstating the effect of the river rise.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_mississippi_river_flooding

A problem, yes, but not a catastrophe.

 

[Blackjack200]

There is this imaginary concept of a general welfare clause. Without being able to find an actual example, they effectively claim the Constitution gives the government absolute power to do anything by making an appeal to the preamble. Levees have long been considered a public work, something which has an established and specific meaning. Might want to read up on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#General_Welfare_Clause

 

[matt0611]

If the state is under threat from foreign invasions, yes. Otherwise no.

 

[fskimospy]

The federal government is beholden to the States. They shouldn't roll in take over, but if a state asks for assistance then it's the duty of the fed to respond. Similar to how a state has to ask for nation guard help.

And that's pretty much how it is today. The state governor has to declare some kind of emergency and request assistance.

The federal government is not beholden to the states, that is in fact the entire purpose of the Constitution.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#General_Welfare_Clause

That's nice.

Edit- I see what may have confused you, and edited my prior post.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Since they are Red states, NO.

Many of the areas impacted by this disaster are Blue (D).

Mississippi's 2nd district
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennie_Thompson

Tennessee's 9th district:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cohen

 

[Scotteq]

General Welfare clause??? You guys really haven't bothered to check on this stuff, have you??

The Stafford Act (§401) requires that: "All requests for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State." A State also includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia are also eligible to request a declaration and receive assistance".

Should Obama again overstep the powers explicitly granted to him and the Federal government by the Constitution and provide aid to them as well or leave the afflicted states to deal with it on their own?

For argument's sake, let's set aside the fact that the Governor of the stricken State has to FORMALLY REQUEST such assistance from the federal government before FEMA are sent out. And that therefore since the state asked for the assistance, there can be no violation of State's Rights....





Let's see what the history is...


29 responses so far for 2011 - http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2011

81 for 2010 - http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2010

59 for 2009 - http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2009


2007 - 63
2006 - 52
2005 - 48
2004 - 69
2003 - 56
2002 - 49
2001 - 45
2000 - 45
1999 - 50
1998 - 65
1997 - 44
1996 - 75
1995 - 32
1994 - 36
1993 - 32
1992 - 45
1991 - 43
1990 - 38
1989 - 31
1988 - 11
1987 - 23
1986 - 28
1985 - 27
1984 - 34
1983 - 21
1982 - 24
1981 - 15
1980 - 23
1979 - 42
1978 - 25
1977 - 22
1976 - 30
1975 - 38
1974 - 46
1973 - 46
1972 - 48
1971 - 17
1970 - 17
1969 - 29
1968 - 19
1967 - 11
1966 - 11
1965 - 25
1964 - 25
1963 - 20
1962 - 22
1961 - 12
1960 - 12
1959 - 7
1958 - 7
1957 - 16
1956 - 16
1955 - 18
1954 - 17
1953 - 13


Adding up to nearly 2,000 incidences over the course of the last 60 years where the Federal Government has stepped in to provide assistance to disaster stricken areas....


I'm pretty sure there is ample precedent.


..but thank you for your trolling.

 

[soulcougher73]

Many of the areas impacted by this disaster are Blue (D).

Mississippi's 2nd district
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennie_Thompson

Tennessee's 9th district:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cohen

Yeah but the states still bleeds red come voting time. That is all that matters j/k

 

[senseamp]

Not a small government loving distressed state. We wouldn't want to impose.

 

[Jaskalas]

Of course you'd say if they can't live their whole lives off the government tit then they can't be allowed aid in a disaster. Is it ignorance or stupidity that has you not seeing the difference? Yes.. I know you appreciate the difference but you're still motivated to say it anyway.

You demand taxes, you demand how people live their lives in order for that money to be returned. We tell you to piss off, and then you gleefully suggest taking our money and running with it.

This hatred of your countrymen will not end peacefully.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is this imaginary concept of a general welfare clause. Without being able to find an actual example, they effectively claim the Constitution gives the government absolute power to do anything by making an appeal to the preamble. Levees have long been considered a public work, something which has an established and specific meaning. Might want to read up on that.

Red States are often the recipients of federal largesse, but Righties usually don't complain about that, just about some of the things that come with it. Farm subsidies aren't a public works project, except in an indirect way, but they stabilize the economy of several red states. Food stamps and medicare are much the same, providing for the general welfare in an indirect way, and red state residents are big consumers of both.

If you think Mississippi is a shithole today, imagine what it might be like w/o the 2:1 return they get on federal tax contributions, for example.

Like I said, it cuts both ways, and strict constitutionalists are really no such thing when it comes to taking Uncle Sam's money.

I'll offer that it's a mistake to keep paying for people to rebuild in areas that flood every several years, and efforts to control that often make it worse overall. We'd be better off to buy 'em out, one time, after a flood, use the land for agriculture of just let it go wild as a buffer against future flooding.

 

[Fern]

The federal gov helping states hit by overwhelming natural disasters? In general, yes.

The federal gov helping states out of self-inflicted budget problems? In general, no.

FFS, it's not a Red state/Blue state issue. Our people are pretty much split 50/50 Dem/Repub. It's just in some states the percentage is fractionally higher one way or the other.

Fern