This just in from Heckovajob Brownie: Help for Sandy came too fast

[Berzerker]

Was Louisiana responsible for a clearly inadequate levee system? Or was the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Congress, and the taxpayers who didn't want to pay the necessary expenses to build a decent system for decades?

Was Louisiana also responsible for clearly inferior national disaster plans and funding? Or, again, it is really the fault of those who want an even more limited federal government?

They were responsible for evacuating people

and lets not kid ourselves, the corruption following federal taxes for the levee system went thru the state's congressional delegation and the state/local sink holes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You can't evacuate the entire city every time a hurricane might come nearby. Don't be silly.

There were two massive screw-ups.

First, The US Army Corps of Engineers were so incompetent they didn't rectify quite obvious problems with the levees which were known for decades. And the US Congress did not appropriate the necessary funds to do so. It still hasn't been properly done despite the deaths of nearly 2000 people and property damage that was nearly $100 Billion.

Second, the president failed to immediately send the military and anybody else he could to rescue the inevitable victims. As soon as the first levee breached, there should have been a massive rescue effort like none which has ever existed in the history of this country that should have dwarfed the response to 9/11. Most of the people who died should have been rescued.

And I have no idea what you mean by the state supposedly diverting non-existent funds to properly correct the situation. It has always been the responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers, not a state matter. The levee system protects the entire Mississippi River basin. And New Orleans has been complaining about the inevitable disaster which was waiting to happen for decades.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I am morbidly curious.

Is there anyone, anywhere, at all, who agrees with Michael Brown here, or.... at any point in history?

Right-wing reflexive reactionary defense squad, I SUMMON THEE!!!

This guy ? I think he is named G.W.Bush, you know that guy that the Republicans elected twice.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I am morbidly curious.

Is there anyone, anywhere, at all, who agrees with Michael Brown here, or.... at any point in history?

Right-wing reflexive reactionary defense squad, I SUMMON THEE!!!

Well, if I really, really wanted to play Devil's Advocate I'd tell you (And I'd be right) that FEMA is an unconstitutional agency that shouldn't exist and that all such aid should be either state-level or private (I'm not even saying that its a good thing that its unconstitutional necessarily, but it still is.)

To allow that defense to George W. Bush (Considering his eight years) is pretty laughable though.

So yeah, I've got no clue how a rational person can defend this.

 

[Arakhor]

How exactly is FEMA unconstitutional? Please don't spit buzz numbers at me.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

How exactly is FEMA unconstitutional? Please don't spit buzz numbers at me.

Umm cause Ron Paul said so? Duh.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Remember, libertarians think everything the government does is unconstitutional.

They live in magical fairy land where the federal government was never intended to exist by The Founding Fathers^tm, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ron and Rand Paul LLC INC .com enterprises.

First clue it's not actually about moral principles: "I don't think the government should force restaurants to serve black people if they don't want to."

Edit: My apologies. I meant Libertarians, not libertarians. It's sort of like the difference between wind and wind. They mean completely different things, but are spelled the same.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Remember, libertarians think everything the government does is unconstitutional.

They live in magical fairy land where the federal government was never intended to exist by The Founding Fathers^tm, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ron and Rand Paul LLC INC .com enterprises.

First clue it's not actually about moral principles: "I don't think the government should force restaurants to serve black people if they don't want to."

Edit: My apologies. I meant Libertarians, not libertarians. It's sort of like the difference between wind and wind. They mean completely different things, but are spelled the same.

Wrong.

We think anything is unconstitutional unless the constittution says otherwise. Stop making crap up.

 

[warpus]

Wait, there are people out there who don't think that a country-wide emergency response system is necessary?

What the...

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Wrong.

We think anything is unconstitutional unless the constittution says otherwise. Stop making crap up.

You do realize something isn't unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court says it is, right? Congress has the power to pass laws and create government agencies and regulate commerce and levy taxes. Everything they do is Constitutional under the powers they have, and it only becomes unconstitutional when the Supreme Court throws it out.

In the words of someone whose opinions you respect: stop making crap up.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Oh, I'm inclined to agree with you that its necessary. My devil's advocate argument, however, was that its unconstitutional, which, short of an amendment, it is.

I think there are people who would question its necessity though. Anarcho-capitalists for one.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Wrong.

We think anything is unconstitutional unless the constittution says otherwise. Stop making crap up.

What the constitution says is constitutional is actually determined by a group of judges with political motivations. Not a piece of paper.

Ninja'd by the freakin Pizza Guy. Why can't you work for Jimmy John's, you're freaky fast?

Oh, I'm inclined to agree with you that its necessary. My devil's advocate argument, however, was that its unconstitutional, which, short of an amendment, it is.

I think there are people who would question its necessity though. Anarcho-capitalists for one.

If it's 'necessary' then it's pretty much constitutional, per the necessary and proper clause.

Also, you're credibility for making a devil's advocate argument tumbles drastically when you claim people are 'making crap up'. That makes it less devil's advocate and more personal vendetta.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

You do realize that whenever Congress does anything that wasn't specifically described in the Constitution, under your definition, it would be unconstitutional, right?

If that were the case, every law they write would be null and void until the Supreme Court okayed it.

That's not the case! That's not how government works.

You know that the constitution is a founding document, a guideline for other laws to be made, not the end of a list of possible laws, right? If anything outside of the constitution is unconstitutional, then there are no laws.

You have to understand that the constitution is a foundation, not the sum of all laws. It establishes guidelines upon which other laws may follow.

Congress has broad powers to do basically anything they want to do. The Supreme Court then can look at it and say "No, this is specifically against the rules set forth by the Constitution".

Until that happens, every law they write is within the written law, because they write the law. It is legal and constitutional UNTIL PROVED OTHERWISE.

Much like the concept of innocent until proven guilty. You're a member of a faction that believes everything is unconstitutional before it is decided so by the Supreme Court. That faction is nothing but unhinged lunacy.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Wait, there are people out there who don't think that a country-wide emergency response system is necessary?

What the...

Yes Warpus there are.

Reasoning:
Somehow states that can't run budget deficits are supposed to pick up the tab for disasters that cost more than their yearly outputs and charities and churches should pick up the balance.

Oh also private corporations should somehow pick up the tab too because free market FTW. (paraphrasing Romney on FEMA)

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

My solution, which is that Obama and Romney donate their entire campaign funds and Super PAC monies to the disaster relief efforts, is the only sane thing to do with that much money.

If they did that, then one of them might be worth voting for as President.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You do realize that whenever Congress does anything that wasn't specifically described in the Constitution, under your definition, it would be unconstitutional, right?

If that were the case, every law they write would be null and void until the Supreme Court okayed it.

That's not the case! That's not how government works.

You know that the constitution is a founding document, a guideline for other laws to be made, not the end of a list of possible laws, right? If anything outside of the constitution is unconstitutional, then there are no laws.

You have to understand that the constitution is a foundation, not the sum of all laws. It establishes guidelines upon which other laws may follow.

Congress has broad powers to do basically anything they want to do. The Supreme Court then can look at it and say "No, this is specifically against the rules set forth by the Constitution".

Until that happens, every law they write is within the written law, because they write the law. It is legal and constitutional UNTIL PROVED OTHERWISE.

Much like the concept of innocent until proven guilty. You're a member of a faction that believes everything is unconstitutional before it is decided so by the Supreme Court. That faction is nothing but unhinged lunacy.

Actually, SCOTUS has nothing to do with it. The fact that they usurped the power in Marbury v Madison does not mean the power was ever actually theirs.
'
The tenth amendment says: The powers not delegated to the Federal government, nor prohibited by it to the states, is reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.

Thus, the states can nullify any law they deem unconstitutional, the states can interpret the constitution, and the Federal government does indeed have to find ad verbatim permission in the Constitution to do anything it wants to do.

You don't realize the reprecussions of what you are suggesting should a trulyt belligerent congress/president ever get elected. Your system might sound all good and dandy when it comes to welfare programs, health insurance, disaster relief, exc. but by giving the government a blank check you are essentially saying if Obama passed a law tomorrow saying all Muslims can be killed on the spot that would actually be a constitutional law until the Supreme Court managed to organize and strike it down.

The reprecussions of "Congress can do whatever it wants" are more horrifying than you realize.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Actually, SCOTUS has nothing to do with it. The fact that they usurped the power in Marbury v Madison does not mean the power was ever actually theirs.

The tenth amendment says: The powers not delegated to the Federal government, nor prohibited by it to the states, is reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.

Thus, the states can nullify any law they deem unconstitutional, the states can interpret the constitution, and the Federal government does indeed have to find ad verbatim permission in the Constitution to do anything it wants to do.

You don't realize the reprecussions of what you are suggesting should a truly belligerent congress/president ever get elected. Your system might sound all good and dandy when it comes to welfare programs, health insurance, disaster relief, exc. but by giving the government a blank check you are essentially saying if Obama passed a law tomorrow saying all Muslims can be killed on the spot that would actually be a constitutional law until the Supreme Court managed to organize and strike it down.

The reprecussions of "Congress can do whatever it wants" are more horrifying than you realize.

News flash: "My system" is not my system, it's how our government works.

The Supreme Court decides whether things are or are not unconstitutional, and is the one court in the land that overrides state Courts.

Why? Because it's the.... Supreme.... Court.

Things are not unconstitutional because Ron Paul.

These are facts.

Now, when I present you the facts, and you huff about what would happen if the government were controlled by, let's say, Nazis, that's besides the point.

If the whole government were full of evil genocidal maniacs on a power trip, then nothing that's written in any law anywhere is going to stop them. Duh.

Spouting hypothetical zombie commie nazi apocalypse scenarios doesn't alter the fact that the government operates a certain way.

Congress writes the laws. Laws go into effect. States must follow the law, or challenge it. The challenge goes to the courts. The decisions of those courts can be appealed all the way to the.... Supreme Court.

And then the Supreme Court renders its final judgment on the matter, and that ends it.

Until, at such time, the Supreme Court decides to take the matter on again, and reverse its own judgment. But nothing overrides the Supreme Court. Not lower courts, not Congress, not the President, not the army, and not wackjobs living in fantasy land 24/7.

If you don't like the way the government works that's fine. Seek to change it. Try to amend the Constitution so that things go the way you want it to.

Until then, you can either deal with reality, which is that the Supreme Court ultimately settles matters of Constitutional law, or you can ignore reality.

What you decide is your choice. I live in the real world.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Actually, SCOTUS has nothing to do with it. The fact that they usurped the power in Marbury v Madison does not mean the power was ever actually theirs.

This argument stopped being relevant in what, 1803? The fact that no one has ever tried to change this situation beyond temporarily ignoring the Supreme Court kind of makes Judicial Review the law of the land, i.e. constitutional. Particularly because the founding fathers were still alive when it started and didn't rail against it.

You don't realize the reprecussions of what you are suggesting should a trulyt belligerent congress/president ever get elected. Your system might sound all good and dandy when it comes to welfare programs, health insurance, disaster relief, exc. but by giving the government a blank check you are essentially saying if Obama passed a law tomorrow saying all Muslims can be killed on the spot that would actually be a constitutional law until the Supreme Court managed to organize and strike it down.

1) Obama can't pass laws.

2) Obama can't even introduce legislation to congress.

3) Frankly, any governmental system can go completely off the rails - no piece of paper will ever stop that.

4) The current checks and balances (Judicial Review, separation of powers, civilian control of the military, etc) and the respect for law and the strong civil institutions we have all act in concert to help ensure the government doesn't fly off the rails.

5) To follow your constitutionally puritanical suggestions and outlaw judicial review would unravel a government that has worked fantastically for 250 years.

6) I don't understand how you can think 'the country is headed in the wrong direction, therefore we must ditch major parts of the government that worked for us our entire history'. It's silly, it ignores our oustanding history and very funtional government. The only reason I can think of for this is that some people aren't happy with the current state of affairs and think a radical shift to their liking is the answer. That's silly.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Askthepizzaguy- I'm well aware of how things work practically speaking, that doesn't make them constitutional just because nobody has dared challenge them. Although I would love to see the word "Expressely" edited into the tenth.

@Hobbsyoyo- Your first two points are accurate. I wasn't really trying to be precise, but you're right.

Texas v White and Wickard v Filburn proved that the Supreme Court surely doesn't do its job very well.

 

[Leonel]

Hey guys it's okay! We got word from Rudy 911 Gulliani that Sandy was worse than Katrina!

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani isn’t exactly famous for his tact, but he kicked his penchant for overstatement into overdrive this Sunday, twice falsely claiming that the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) response to Hurricane Sandy was worse than its botched response to Hurricane Katrina under President George W. Bush.

Speaking at a Romney campaign office in Florida, Giuliani said “[Obama] right now is doing a terrible job of disaster relief in my city, but no one is talking about it…People don’t have water, they don’t have food, electricity and his FEMA is no where to be found. This is a worse response than Katrina.” He also levelled the charge during a Fox News appearance, telling host Neil Cavuto that the notion FEMA was doing a good job was a “joke:”

I think maybe because there’s an election going on, people don’t want to say that, but I think FEMA has dropped the ball, certainly as big they did with Katrina, maybe bigger because they had more warning here and the situation isn’t as big as Katrina.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...hurricane-sandy-worse-than-katrina/?mobile=nc


Link to video.