Domestic disaster relief strategies and implementation

Domestic Disaster Relief

Before the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act functioned to provide sound and integrated basis for federal and state forces to work together to mitigate domestic disaster, whether natural or man-made. The Act for example clearly distinguished between state and federal forces, where the role of the Department of Defense was primarily to provide aid when state forces were no longer able to contain certain situations. This aid was however always provided under the authority and with the assistance of local governors.

According to Elsea (2005, p. 2), the constitutionality of integrated mitigation remained ensured by several provisions that regulated such actions. Most notably, the Posse Comitatus Act for example provided a platform from which the national powers of the Department of Defense could provide valuable and vital assistance without infringing upon constitutional state sovereignty. Governors and state officials played an important role in providing integrated assistance and mitigation during times of disaster. The power levels of both types of authority were vital in order to provide effective assistance to victims of disaster.

According to Lowenberg (2007), however, the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) changed and fundamentally impacted the constitutionality of federal action during disasters at the state or national level. According to Lowenberg's assertions, the NDAA impacted the Constitution on two basic levels: the ethical/philosophical and the practical/historical level.

In terms of the ethical/constitutional, the constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty of states is undermined in both the implementation and the implications of the NDAA. Firstly, the Act was passed without any consultation. No relevant or interested parties were for example included in the decision-making process. Lowenberg for example notes that the importance of the role of the Guard at the state and national level, along with the sovereignty of states and governors in decision-making processes were all but ignored by passing the law without so much as a single opportunity for debate. This is unconstitutional in the light of the fact that this is a major policy decision that affect governors and their decision-making authority across the nation.

In terms of the implications of the NDAA, the proposition effectively removes all decision-making power from local governments in the event of domestic disaster. The President could for example seize control of the National Guard and use it in any way he seems fit without the need to justify or articulate this need to the local authorities and governors. In other words, no consultation with or need for consent from governors is necessary before seizing control of the National Guard This removes all previously-established balance between the state and federal authority, with all authority reverting to the president.

This could result not only in confusion, but in chaos should domestic disaster occur. Especially in the light of the fact that no debate or information was divulged to the authorities directly affected by the NDAA, the implementation of the new Act would mean changing a historically effective system of integration among the state and federal authorities. The power and roles of the state authorities would be effectively removed, and the ensuing confusion would also result in the retardation of providing essential services to the victims of disaster.