This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« The Conservative Voice | Main | Shameful »
September 10, 2005
Stafford Act: Presidential Has Unilateral Power to "Take Charge"?
As a member of the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), I have access to the AAPORnet list serv that includes members of all the major polling organizations. My argument to the polling community was that interpretation of the recent polls showing 60-70% of Americans unhappy with the President's handling of Katrina may be aided if future polls also probed the public's understanding of the President's power (Constitutional or other) to "take charge" of domestic relief/recovery efforts.
One member directed me to this Department of Homeland Security National Response Plan dated December 2004. On page 7, the Plan lays out the authority of the President as granted by the Stafford Act and "applicable regulations":
If the President determines that an emergency exists where the primary responsibility for response rests with the Government of the United States, or because the emergency involves an area or facility for which the Federal Government exercises exclusive or preeminent primary responsibility and authority, the President may unilaterally direct the provision of assistance under the act and will, if practicable, consult with the Governor of the State.Many will argue that response to Katrina was not a "primary responsibility" of the federal government, but that is a different argument than the one I am exploring here. I am trying to understand if the President had the *power* to intervene more forcefully than he did, and if so, what power did he have that he chose not to exercise. Now is not the time for the President to answer these questions, but when the time does come, I will be interested to hear his response.
Am I missing something?
Posted by Rick at September 10, 2005 01:09 PM
Trackback Pings
Comments
Rick, ask this AAPOR member why the Governor of LA still refuses to turn over power of to the federal government?
Posted by: BC at September 10, 2005 07:48 PM
If the president had intervened, would we be hearing about how he wrested the power of the state away from the governor? (was this a lose/lose?)
Posted by: Ellen at September 11, 2005 10:29 AM
BC and Ellen, thank you, but I am *specifically* talking about the *power* to wrest control over operations from local authorities. If he had the power, but didn't choose to exercise it, this needs to be discussed. It shouldn't be assumed that: a) he has the power; b) he doesn't have the power; or c) he probably has the power, but it was a good thing that he didn't use it. I want to know which one it was. Why is this not a good thing to understand?
Posted by: Rick Brady at September 11, 2005 11:27 AM
What does it say in the Constitution? (I don't care what the cuurent powers that be say)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Here's a link to the powers of the president:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2
If it's not in there - he shouldn't have the power.
Posted by: Ellen at September 11, 2005 03:08 PM