• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Katrina Victims Get Plug Pulled

Steve

Well-known member
Why cant the best funded army in the world enter a city with a few hundred hoodlums?

Because our constitution forbids it.......

Three years later, in Ex Parte Milligan, the Court found unconstitutional Lincoln's order authorizing trial by a military tribunal of Lambdin P. Milligan, an Indiana lawyer accused of stirring up support for the Confederacy. The Court ruled that civilians must be tried in civilian courts, even during time of war, so long at least as the civilian courts are open and operating. The Court also found the President lacked authority to declare martial law in Indiana.

"In the United States, there is little precedent for martial law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise.

ex parte Milligan

On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional."


in 1946 (the year may be important!), found unconstitutional President Roosevelt's declaration of martial law in the Hawaii Territory following the attack on Pearl Harbor.)



Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

so while New Orleans was in shambles as long as the state and local goverment existedin some form, the President should not have brought in the military......to handle a few hoodlums or as you put it......"best funded army in the world enter a city with a few hundred hoodlums?"
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
The constitution was in many ways written to protect states rights. As long as the states governmet was there they could have used the Louisiana National guard. I am assuming at least some of it was activated for the disastr, but god only knows how much of it is overseas. In many ways that is what the guard is usually used for (Natural disasters).
 
It's a sad thing but it happened.Most of these people were living off the Gov to begin with.Did not want to work had basically nothing and could not leave, put there self in a bad situation and expected the Gov to help again.
You have to look out for yourself and not expect handouts.Don't rely solely on someone else for your welfare and safety it's up to you.I am tired of hearing about it.What about Mississippi hardly a word.AND DON'T LIVE BELOW SEALEVEL :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
I don't agree with you at all R2.

I'm not gonna sit and wait for the cavalry to come take care of me.

Neighbors take care of neighbors.

There should not have been a rescue of that magnitude to argue about.

The exact same scenario happened during Hurricane Andrew. Fema took the same number of days to respond to those folks too but you didn't hear all the whining simply because those people weren't all black.

Somhow we've gotten to the point where we have to help the blacks lace up their shoes in the mornings and it's a shame that they have come to expect it.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
I can still see the line of people lining up to go in the stadium. Some had big sacks of items..................but the most memorable were some with tiny sacks. One fellow in particular I remember had a cup of pop or whatever like you get at your local stop and rob Conv. store. Now considering they were supposed to bring provisions for a week.......how in the heck do you live off a pop for a week.

And before someone tells me they didn't have time...............hogwash. they knew this was coming for days and most people even stood in line to get inside for hours.

So the citizens dropped the ball in the first place and if it wasn't for their failure to act it wouldn't have required the local on up to the federal gov to react like they did. Their response could have been directed to the sick, etc. The thing some forget is that NO was not the only place hit............but they were the ones that needed the most of the help dispatched. Lack of planning plain and simple.
 

Steve

Well-known member
R2:
The federal government admits it should have sent the Army in earlier. Yes, posse comitatis and all that, but it can and should use troops under such conditions.


So your constitution supports , or does nothing to prevent , anarchy ?


Our constitution is what actually prevents anarchy, or worse......

"The United States has been unique in entrusting law enforcement to civilian forces, at the lowest levels of government in its federal system. Its revolutionary and constitutional heritage likewise led to a sharp separation of civilian and military spheres of government, and to the subordination of the military to civilian authority."

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 established a presumption against the use of the military to enforce the laws. ,...The United States has been proudly unique in entrusting law enforcement to civilian forces, managed and controlled by civilians. Its federal system has helped cement control over and accountability for law enforcement activities and decisions. ,...To be sure, no other government entity has the training, equipment, and resources to bring force to bear when an attack occurs. Likewise, if the National Guard is included, no other part of government is as widely dispersed and available throughout the nation in case of emergency.

Express constitutional authority for such use is found in Article I, § 8, which provides, "The Congress shall have the power... to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions...'. Additional authority may be drawn from Article IV, § 4, which imposes on the federal government the obligation to protect each of the states 'against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)....

so as you can see that our courts have ruled against the use of Martial law, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, further defines the militarys' role in police action......the President did not have the authority to "send in the troops" against a bunch of hoodlums.....

With a constitution like ours despots such as Saddam, Castro, Lenin and Hitler can not exist......its a tough price to pay for "FREEDOM", but it is worth it.....

*thanks R2 I couldn't think of the other act that prevented military intervention.....
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act 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. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There are also some major legal questions on whether you can force a person to leave and evacuate his home or property for a perceived danger...

Media attention first focused on it when the authorities issued the Mt. St. Helens evacuation order and old Lodge owner Harry Truman refused to go- and went up with the volcano...Some of the public outcry said he should have been forced off physically- even claimed negligence against the authorities- but then some of the attornies got to digging and could find no legal authority to force him...

I know here- we had a flood once that Dept. of Emergency Services ordered an evacuation on- several folks refused to leave their homes- the states attornies were consulted and said that as long as they were not hindering the flood control efforts (for which they could be arrested) that there was nothing we could do under Montanas Constitution....They said Advise them (even plead with them), offer them assistance in leaving, advise them they are on their own if they stay, but if they refuse there is nothing you can do.....
 

alabama

Well-known member
So now what?
Where do we go from here?
Do we cut off all aid?
Do we give them all a new house?
What do we do now to get this over with?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Really this all divides down between geography. It seems all folks who live where it is very UNLIKELY to flood or suffer the consequences of a hurricane see it one way.

Those of us who live in areas that can and do flood due to tropical issues or have had a hurricane rip the roof off our house...well...we tend to look at the issue of HELP in a different manner!
 

elwapo

Well-known member
Johanns Announces $780 Million in Aid for Drought Regions

So now what?
Where do we go from here?
Do we cut off all aid?
Do we give them all a new JOB?
What do we do now to get this over with?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Kolanuraven:
Those of us who live in areas that can and do flood due to tropical issues or have had a hurricane rip the roof off our house...well...we tend to look at the issue of HELP in a different manner!

living less the 5 blocks from the beach......and 6 feet above sea level.....I see thing differantly....If it looks like it is going to hit........I am outa here....if my concrete, 17' thick walled,.... built to excede,.. Hurricane standards "flood insured" house is gone.......then I will be damn glad I was not in it.....
 

Steve

Well-known member
It seems all folks who live where it is very UNLIKELY to flood or suffer the consequences of a hurricane see it one way.

I don't think it is about flooding,or Hurricanes......but more about those who were helped, actually doing something to better thier situation...

if one year ago you were cold, hungery, homeless, and with out a job

and I gave you a place to stay, clothes, food, and the ability to find a job....and after a year, you were still asking me for a hand out, I would think even the most charitable person would be getting a little tired of helping....

I agree with helping others out...but at some point they must start helping themselves......
 

Latest posts

Top