Federalism and hurricane katrina worksheet

POSC100 AMERICAN GOVERNMENT HURRICANE KATRINA AND FEDERALISM EXERCISE

These pages present some additional data to help you answer the questions on the Hurricane Katrina worksheet handed out in class on the 19

th of February. Read and reflect on this information. If you’re

interested, the world of the internet has much much more information on the government’s response. Be cautious, however, for many of the opinions expressed on blogs and other commentary is ill-informed to the extreme.

Disaster Planning and Relief

In the area of disaster relief, there are a good many jurisdictional gray areas. The Constitution is silent on the federal government’s role—there are no enumerated powers,; only implied powers:

From Article I, Section 8:

(1) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".

… [the remaining 16 provisions enumerating the powers of Congress]

(18) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In the early days, it was unclear if these provisions allowed Congress to even appropriate funds to help out a specific geographical affected by a disaster.

1

1 Jack M. Balkin from Yale University explains:

One of the earliest and most contentious debates during the first years of the Constitution's history was whether or not the federal government had the power, under its authority "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," to spend money for disaster relief for a specific community.

Jeffersonian strict constructionists argued that the words "general welfare" precluded such a power, arguing first, that the general welfare clause only gave Congress the power to spend on behalf of one of its other enumerated powers, and second, that even if the power to spend for the general welfare were an independent power, Congress could not devote money to a specific locality or region, but must spend for the entire country as a whole, i.e., "the general welfare of the United States." Loose constructionists, following Alexander Hamilton, argued that the general welfare clause gave Congress a separate power, and that the clause gave Congress wide latitude to spend money to promote what it viewed as conducive to the general welfare.

These competing ideas took center stage in the aftermath of a devastating fire in Savannah, Georgia in 1796. Hamilton and his federalist friends appealed emotionally to Southern Representatives in Congress to encourage a broad reading of the Art 1, s 8(1). However, Southern Representatives, many of whom were Jeffersonian Republicans, stood firm to their original understanding and refused to provide federal funds to assist a specific area of the country. Over time, Hamilton's view has won out. Nobody in the federal government today has any constitutional qualms about sending federal money and assistance to New Orleans—so long as the states and/or local governments ask. (Jack M. Balkin, Disaster Relief and the Constitution: A History of “Strict Construction”)

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/08/disaster-relief-and-constitution.html
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/08/disaster-relief-and-constitution.html
Nowadays, the implied powers of the federal government to appropriate for the general welfare are shared (or “concurrent”) with many state and local powers and responsibilities.

Traditionally state and local governments have been the first responders to disasters, with the federal government providing backup, financial and logistical aid, and help with long-term recovery. The federal government will enter the picture earlier if state officials ask. Increasingly, however, the people have looked to the federal government for a quick and decisive response, in conflict with its traditional role and constitutional powers.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it didn't take very long for the "blame game" to begin. Even as scenes of utter chaos and destruction in New Orleans were still being broadcast live around the world in late August 2005, federal, state, and local officials started pointing fingers at each other.

Assigning blame is difficult.

It is pretty clear that the “government” responded poorly. Emergency procedures, even though many had been rehearsed,

were not followed; communication between different agencies never began or broke down. Yet, some of the problems surrounding Katrina arose from very real confusion about who was to do what and when. Our task today is to figure out which part of “the government” is responsible for what when disaster hits and to apply that knowledge to the response to the response to Hurricane Katrina.

What role does the federal government have in disaster management and planning?

The federal government had no role in disaster management until—you guessed it—President Roosevelt and the New Deal of the 1930s. Three federal government agencies were given roles in disaster management: the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which could provide loans to states to help repair damage resulting out of an earthquake; The Bureau of Public Roads, which could provide funds to repair roads and bridges after a hurricane; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which was allowed to intervene to help out in floods. However, the federal government had only a small. Over time this role in disaster relief gradually increased.