There's still much chatter on the Right about how President Obama has "failed" to help out regarding the oil spill in the Gulf Of Mexico. It's quite obvious they are trying to find a Katrina like event at which they can stomp their feet and point.
Setting aside the amusing fact that any mistakes Obama makes won't erase the enormous errors made by all levels of government during Katrina, isn't the Right all about strict interpretations of the Constitution these days? Answer: Yes. They scream about health care not being a right nor being commerce. They howl about spending, taxes, and states rights. Now, they are letting loose huge volleys of the wordy squirts about the federal government not doing enough to contain this oil spill.
But where exactly in the Constitution does it say that falls under federal power? Make no mistake, I think the federal government (who is US b to the w) should be helping out but that's because I'm not hyper paranoid about them. So, to the ones that champion the Constitution and think our government should help in the oil spill, what section of the Constitution details this responsibility?
7 comments:
The right isn't exactly united on this one, Mark. You've got Rush Limbaugh telling us that oil spills are natural and we should just let the ocean deal with it. You've got Rick Perry telling us this was the will of God (He must hate oil rig workers). And you've got assorted other Republicans whining that the government didn't do enough.
It was my impression that Republicans wanted government to be small enough to drown in an a bathtub filled with crude oil. Why are they now complaining that the EPA didn't do enough? They don't even want EPA to exist.
BP was minimizing the extent of the spill the whole time, and the government reacted according to the reported magnitude of the problem. It turns out BP was wrong, and somehow the government should have known better than the industry experts who claimed that such a spill was nigh impossible? Yeah, I guess the government should have known how mendacious and incompetent those oil industry guys are.
BP has had a particularly lousy safety record these last few years. This foreign corporation doesn't give a damn how much it pollutes the Alaska wilderness or the Gulf Coast. It's all about profit, so they cut down on safety inspections and repairs to save a few bucks. Yet conservatives think we should downsize government to the point where Exxon's and BP's profits exceed the total federal budget, and reduce regulation of companies like this? Louisiana and Texas would be like Nigeria -- toxic swamps filled with leaking pipelines, and crude oil seeping into the water supply.
This is another example of why small government conservatives are wrong. In this day and age, the government needs to be big enough to deal with the catastrophes caused by big corporations like BP and Toyota. With a small government BP and Fox News would simply conspire to cover it up and blame the spill on something else -- Cuba, perhaps, so they could start a war against Raul Castro and get all that lovely real estate back. It makes a lot more sense than blaming it on God.
Who exactly is the largest recepient of cash from BP?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
It's the headline on Drudge right now. Hope and change.
Mark: You've asked a good question, and I find myself conflicted. I am unable to find anything in the constitution that I would agree authorizes a 'FEMA'. But I agree with you that some sort of federal disaster agency should exist. I support local, (1st) state, (2nd) and federal (dead last) government intrusion to a certain extent. But I would rather have a federal agency in charge of a multi-state disaster. I may have to give this more thought. Perhaps an amendment is in order.
dw
The dw Amendment
All the things you say on your blog that government should do for people and only now you start to ask if it is constitutional?
I support local, (1st) state, (2nd) and federal (dead last) government intrusion to a certain extent. But I would rather have a federal agency in charge of a multi-state disaster. I may have to give this more thought. Perhaps an amendment is in order.
Find the authority from which the Mississippi River Commission was derived, that will probably lead you there on a pretty short path. Mississippi River flooding was the first recurring disaster the country had to deal with that flatly could not be handled on a state-by-state basis, I think.
The authority was legislated in the 70th Congress, and I have no problem with the constitution giving congress the ability to regulate commerce between the states. The Mississippi certainly qualifies as an intra-state commerce corridor.
dw
Post a Comment