Posted on 09/10/2005 6:27:25 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
Just watched a legal expert on Fox go thru the disaster event by event. Based on the Law Gov Blanco is legally liable. If lawsuits are filed, there is no way she can duck it. In addition, when Bush went went down there, he offered her immediate deployment of Reg Army troops, she told both him and Nagel that she "needed 24 hours" to decide. This is DC politics. As everyone from Bush to Clinton to Carter learned, Washington Politics are a whole lot tougher then local politics. Blanco is toast. EVEN if the National Dems get the "Independent Commission" there is no way to rescue her based on the Law. I suspect that is why Mayor Nagel has been so quiet. He found out last Fri just who was holding the knife in his back, and it wasn't Bush
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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I didn't say you didn't post something, I said you ignored the phrase 'AND ON APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, OR OF THE EXECUTIVE'.
Get with the program.
Was merely refuting GITMO who maintained the federal troops cant be used for domestic law enforcement under any circumstances...LOL
Oh, sorry didn't see the sarcasm. Show's the level you have to get to to argue with liberals.
I don't think many African-Americans in Louisiana are voting for Republicans, regardless of what ethnic background they might come from...
What do you think this part means?
Yet again this is YOUR opinion stated as a fact. So far all you have done is keep reposting over and over and over the same snippets of law and claimng that "proves" your opinons. It DOES nothing of the sort. Your opinon is NOT a fact as you have been repeatedly told.
So Let us try this a DIFFERENT way. Infocats is making the accusation. The Burden of PROOF is on Infocats. State your accusation and provide verifable references to actual events that prove your accusation factual. The LAW does NOT prove INFOCATS AUCCUSATION factual. So Infocats can quit with the fraudelnt tactic of reposting the law over and over and claiming it proves your opinons. It does nothing of the sort.
Where did you go?
The Posse Comitatus Act is a federal law of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, and was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. Coupled with the Insurrection Act the powers of the federal government to use the US military for law enforcement are limited and delayed.
You are absolutely correct. Apparently, I have been using CFR's and USC's more or less (and inexcusably) interchangeably. I noticed that several sections of the CFR refer to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by Public Law 106-390, October 30, 2000. What I am finding a bit confusing (okay, more than a bit) is where the one leaves off and the other begins, at what point do they work in tandem, and at what point does the pertinent sections of the CFR carry the weight of law? For example, the Stafford Act seems to establish broad parameters in which the CFR can function to carry out a certain mission. Between the two documents, the fed appears to have extraordinary latitude in dealing with the after effects of a disaster, but perhaps not nearly as much in preventing them to the extent possible.
I think it means exactly what it says it means. However, there are other sections (and I am paraphrasing) that state that FEMA has to take into account the entities with which or whom they are dealing and act accordingly. This I take to mean that if in FEMA's estimation, the local community is too poor, too dysfunctional, or too corrupt (and I would suggest all three apply in Louisiana) to uphold their end of the bargain, it is up to the fed to assume command and control to return chaos to order in minimizing the loss of life and property while maximizing the benefit to society as a whole. This appears to be the underlying sub theme of TITLE 44
Approach everything you read from the default position of the state being in charge. If the head of a state wants to limit federal action from taking place in their state, there are real limits to the federal government overriding them.
too dysfunctional,
As long as a state has a standing government, they are in charge, no matter how dysfunctional, because the people in those communities voted to put those people into office.
or too corrupt
Again, as long as a state has a standing government, they are in charge, no matter how corrupt, because the people in those communities voted to put those people into office.
it is up to the fed to assume command and control to return chaos to order in minimizing the loss of life and property while maximizing the benefit to society as a whole.
No, it is not the responsibility of the fed to act like the big ol' nanny to every single adult fool in the nation. Best the feds can do about it has to do with the power of the purse. That purse is a darn big carrot or stick, depending on which way it needs to be applied.
This appears to be the underlying sub theme of TITLE 44
Which is why you continue to get all of this wrong! Command & control of states are addressed in the US Constitution. If any state didn't wanna cooperate with anything or everything in Title 44, they can not be Constitutionally forced to do so. They all go along with it, because of that big ol' federal purse. IOW, it is not in their interest to challenge it in court.
Yeah, they have, haven't they? In the worst way possible. I thought my comment sounded kind of tacky after I typed it earlier.
Tacky perhaps---but absolutely true, as well.
"Sometimes the truth hurts."
This wreck has been amplified for coverage by the suckups at the MSM!
The mayor and governor squandered mega-resources, while trying to put on the DIMWIT face for the 6:00pm national news.
"He did request request that people bring enough food for 3 days. Yeah, right....welfare people are going to provide for themselves."
Like people on welfare are going to have anything left of it at the end of the month, anyway. What food for three days?
"Check the phone records between Louisiana and the mega-players at DIMWIT Hdqrs.
This wreck has been amplified for coverage by the suckups at the MSM!"
I'm not sure I'm up for that tonight.
Besides I'm having a late dinner and don't want to upchuck it.
Best Regards,
P.S. Maybe another day on an empty stomach.
He did.
Are you a fraud? A coward? a liar? Or what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.