"You should never elect anybody from Chicago nor should we elect anybody from Quebec. Just plain stupid."

Indeed. Such quaint things, elections, are they not? The People's voice, and sooo heartening --Yep.

Cheers.

TRollsome It seems to me that much of your constitution has been bypassed for many years now, and the Constitution of the USA is what the courts say it is. I would not like it either, but short of civil unrest (not likely to happen as most are too timid or don't care) Washington is gathering more and more power over your lives. This is true in most countries as evidenced with Merkel in Germany and Sarkozy in France.

It is simply a fact of life. Shouldn't be but is and getting worse with the election of more and more power players to office.

You should never elect anybody from Chicago nor should we elect anybody from Quebec. Just plain stupid.

Avatar asked, "I do not see how Washington can supersede the State in this situation."

There's precedence, the rule of law does not apply any longer, and they're all in it together now.

Some People think, "The locals need only elbow the feds out of the way."

Problem is, the locals have been federalized, and the locals enjoy their ability to take what they want.

The local sheriff's are Not in awe of the feds, they are the feds.

Look over these well written examples:

Click to view link

Unless this is National Forest Land, I do not see how Washington can supersede the State in this situation. Story seems a bit fishy.

Unfortunately, fires rage. Yes, they do. In many countries but from varying 'sources'. What goes around... ?

Tsunami, an agency can have all the mandates behind it as it wants, but if it is not allowed for in the U.S. Constitution, then it is nothing more than the mouse that roared, it's bullying background notwithstanding. Whether the state's constitution calls for it to "allow" a federal agency in first or not is moot to me, as in this instance, the state holds all the cards. (I'm not familiar with Texas' constitution.)

This doesn't need to go to the courts at all. The locals need only elbow the feds out of the way. What's going to happen then? The feds start arresting/shooting? The local sheriffs need to grow a pair, stop being in awe of the feds, and step in to begin with.

Re: "I also know that this was the problem with Katrina when politics entered the picture and the Governor never activated FEMA soon enough."

I have watched history revised to blame the Bush administration and create a meme that FEMA did not act quickly enough in the case of Katrina. It is very frustrating when I watched the news accounts where the LA governor refused to request disaster aid--presumably for the political purpose of making the Bush Admin look bad--but maybe also to help set the precedent for the PTB to send in those who will say: "We're from the government and we're here to help."

I'm glad that you are looking into the regulations that apply. Thanks for that.

Trollsome I do not say I like it but if this Federal National agency has a Federal legislated mandate as does FEMA then there are conditions under which is has to operate.

My question to you is do you know if this is a Legislated Federal organization or not?

If it is then there seems to be two additional questions:
-do they have the authority to do as they are doing?
- Is it required as FEMA is to be called by the State before moving in?

If it is a legislated mandated organization and they are operating within that mandate then the only recourse to sue or appeal to the courts including your Supreme court.

I agree that on the surface they seem high handed and are way over the top, but as an outsider I don't know your laws like you do.

How is it that the Federal government seizes control of what is clearly an internal state situation. While the Feds may be called in for assistance, there is no authority by which they can "seize control."

"But some Texans aren't allowing their efforts to be thwarted. As Real News Reporter says in its story, a group of Texas Nationalist Movement members who are also certified firefighters are in the Bastrop area and aiding civilian relief efforts, with or without permission from Washington D.C."

The real agenda of FEMA's presence will be revealed by whether THIS group is allowed to function with aid. From all appearances, and based on previous FEMA history such as in the Katrina disaster, the probability of their being allowed to contribute aid is extremely low... a situation which imo has been extremely obvious for *quite some time.* FEMA is not pro-America... ... .

Tsunami, have you seen FEMA anywhere in Article 1, Section 8? Just because an agency exists, doesn't mean that it has a Constitutional "right" to exist. And no, it can't be lumped into the military, either.

Dotti, it's only dead when its last supporter dies.

Semper Fidelis!

Re: "The local and state officials need to stand up to this intimidation. After all, they have the Constitution on their side--specifically the Tenth Amendment."

I heartily applaude your efforts.

I am afraid that I have come to believe that our Constitution no longer provides us refuge. The term "Living Constitution" is used by those who would have us believe that the original Constitution has died.

They may, unfortunately, be correct.

Trollsome Are you sure of that? In the case of your FEMA once they are called in they take control of the situation.

Interesting question.

Dotti It is not a tradition but a Congressional Legislated requirement in the case of FEMA. That was part of the original Bill approved by Congress in the 40s in your country. It is the law.

We have no such law here in Canada. Here each Province (State) makes the determination and will ask the Inter-provincial co ordination centre in Winnipeg for assistance if they need it. The Inter-Provincial agency is only co-ordinating obtaining of fire fighters from the other Provinces then they are finished.

Dotti Good question. As a Canadian I do know that we currently have several hundred fire fighters in the USA fighting fires but we were requested to send them by the State the Boise Operation.

I do know that FEMA can only be activated on a request from the State Governor. That stipulation is imbedded in your legislation in your Capital.
I also know that this was the problem with Katrina when politics entered the picture and the Governor never activated FEMA soon enough.

I have e-mailed the Federal National Fire people and asked that question as it may be a different either regulation (not binding) or Federal Legislation which was also bought into by the States.

Being from Canada it has no direct impact on me but this action by the Feds does seem counter productive.

The "multiple federal agencies" have no jurisdiction there, and should have been sent packing, or, better, the locals should have bossed them around and put them in their place. I'm sure the feds would have pouted and cried all the way to Washington.

The local and state officials need to stand up to this intimidation. After all, they have the Constitution on their side--specifically the Tenth Amendment.

David Welsh
Iowa Coordinator, Tenth Amendment Center
Click to view link

IDIOCRACY ,WHAT ELSE !?

Re: "That same story reports that Jennifer Jones of the U.S. National Interagency Incident Center confirmed multiple federal agencies would be taking over the scene. Tuesday afternoon, the Bastrop County Office of Emergency Management stated on its Facebook page that volunteer firefighters would have to be "activated by the National Forestry Service first.""

This story chills my blood. Perhaps a certain irrational paranoia is setting in, but I can imagine that any "trouble spot" in the future--perhaps food riots or unemployment protests--could be taken over by the feds. "Keep moving folks. There's nothing to see here." [Airplane]

Might it be NATO taking charge of trouble spots in the not-too-distant future?

There has been a tradition of feds not going into any disaster area until asked in by the state's governor. [This wreaked havoc during the Katrina disaster when the LA governor refused to request federal assistance.]

Did this happen in this case--Did Texas invite the feds in? I consider this to be a very important question. Anybody got the answer?