Anonymous wrote:I loathe Trump and all that he represents, but this actually makes sense. There is no real Constitutional justification for FEMA being a federal government responsibility. Which is not to say that it hasn't done good and important work. It has. But it also wasn't something that the founders would have ever considered to be a power of Congress.

Congressional Act of 1803
The first legislative act of federal disaster relief in U.S. history followed a devastating fire in Portsmouth, New Hampshire in December 1802. The destruction of large areas of the city’s seaport threatened commerce in the newly founded nation. In 1803, U.S. Congress provided relief to affected Portsmouth merchants by suspending bond payments for several months.

Constitution:
Article IV, Section 4 -- FEMA's disaster assistance is intended to ensure the continuity of government in the states, guaranteeing them a Republican form of Government.
Commerce Clause and General Welfare probably as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Virginia has had severe floods and apparently there is little to no help.

States like West Virginia will suffer without FEMA. Bigger, richer states like Texas and Florida will be alright.

No they won't. Texas couldn't handle a cold snap. Florida relies heavily on FEMA every time a hurricane passes through.

Thoughts and prayers, red states.

I guess it means that if you lose your house in a hurricane or fire you can build your own shantytown.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me, as if I am a five year old, how having a single, centralized FEMA is less efficient than having 50 separate FEMAs running in parallel with each other?

It won’t be. That’s utter fiction. Now disaster relief will work the same way that trying to obtain ventilators and PPE worked during Covid, when Trump told states to handle it on their own: if multiple states are hit by a powerful hurricane or a series of tornadoes, they’ll all be bidding on the same resources, driving up the cost for each other. Some states will have stockpiles of bottled water and others will run out and have to figure out how to get more and distribute it in areas with no electricity and many road closures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? There are multiple statutes enacted by Congress. FEMA was created by Congress, and it would be unconstitutional for the president to delete it. That is how the "founders" are implicated.

Agreed completely, and I should have said that above. FEMA doesn't really have any Constitutional justification, but that doesn't mean that the executive can just make it go away because he doesn't like it. Congress needs to do that.

But the founding fathers wouldn't have envisioned Congress as having the power to create FEMA in the first place.

They couldn’t have envisioned space exploration either, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

People keep forgetting that the Constitution has always been a living document. It’s meant to be updated while still holding onto the foundational principals. The Founding Fathers couldn’t have envisioned many of the advancements and changes that have come about in the evolution of trying to science a just and free nation. What they could envision was Authoritarianism which is why they created three separate equal branches and made it so elections and voting belonged to the people.

Now the people just need to use their power to take back their government .

Who is going to take it back? Not the media, no big law, not the establishment democrats…who? This country is done.

even with FEMA, New Orleans let a lot of poor people die post Katrina. Imagine what they'll do with all their "states rights, umkay?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? There are multiple statutes enacted by Congress. FEMA was created by Congress, and it would be unconstitutional for the president to delete it. That is how the "founders" are implicated.

Agreed completely, and I should have said that above. FEMA doesn't really have any Constitutional justification, but that doesn't mean that the executive can just make it go away because he doesn't like it. Congress needs to do that.

But the founding fathers wouldn't have envisioned Congress as having the power to create FEMA in the first place.

They couldn’t have envisioned space exploration either, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

People keep forgetting that the Constitution has always been a living document. It’s meant to be updated while still holding onto the foundational principals. The Founding Fathers couldn’t have envisioned many of the advancements and changes that have come about in the evolution of trying to science a just and free nation. What they could envision was Authoritarianism which is why they created three separate equal branches and made it so elections and voting belonged to the people.

Now the people just need to use their power to take back their government .

Even with block grants, states lack the resources to swiftly respond to disasters, which is why FEMA was formed in the first place.

We are going backwards as a country.

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? There are multiple statutes enacted by Congress. FEMA was created by Congress, and it would be unconstitutional for the president to delete it. That is how the "founders" are implicated.

Agreed completely, and I should have said that above. FEMA doesn't really have any Constitutional justification, but that doesn't mean that the executive can just make it go away because he doesn't like it. Congress needs to do that.

But the founding fathers wouldn't have envisioned Congress as having the power to create FEMA in the first place.

They couldn’t have envisioned space exploration either, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me, as if I am a five year old, how having a single, centralized FEMA is less efficient than having 50 separate FEMAs running in parallel with each other?

Do I think 50 FEMA flowers blooming is more efficient - no. Those arguing for no single FEMA will say that “states know better blah blah” without acknowledging that a state experiencing a catastrophic event might not be able to take any action as their trucks have been damaged, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Virginia has had severe floods and apparently there is little to no help.

States like West Virginia will suffer without FEMA. Bigger, richer states like Texas and Florida will be alright.

No. They’ll just let poor people die.

A lot of lower income people voted for this. They do not want assistance from the government and they don't want to pay for it and they're now not going to get it.

No, they do want assistance from the government; they simply believed the pain would only happen to other people.

Can someone explain to me, as if I am a five year old, how having a single, centralized FEMA is less efficient than having 50 separate FEMAs running in parallel with each other?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess people should get ready for their state and local taxes to raise.

Further, infrastructure investment is something Democrats have been calling for which is why they created whole funding and programs for it last administration. Becuase you know helping states and the country make sustainable infrastructure investments is good for everyone.

Not sure why we need another review though when ACoR, FEMA, DOT and state agencies can already answer most questions.

States like Florida should not have no income tax and then rely on the Feds to bail them out each and every year for hurricanes. Raise their taxes.

California too.

If you cut off Florida and say they’re not part of the country and can’t receive federal funding for natural disasters then they will just recoup that cost by charging tolls/taxes when anyone from the north drives or flies into the state for vacation.

They already collect taxes from vacationers. They need to collect income tax from the people that live there.

Why would they do that when they can get tourists to pay for it?

Then they need to stop taking all Federal aid and figure out what to do about their own home insurance. Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Virginia has had severe floods and apparently there is little to no help.

States like West Virginia will suffer without FEMA. Bigger, richer states like Texas and Florida will be alright.

No. They’ll just let poor people die.

A lot of lower income people voted for this. They do not want assistance from the government and they don't want to pay for it and they're now not going to get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Virginia has had severe floods and apparently there is little to no help.

States like West Virginia will suffer without FEMA. Bigger, richer states like Texas and Florida will be alright.

No. They’ll just let poor people die.