welsh
Junkmaster
And in many ways that makes sense in Canada, especially given the recurring nationalistic trend in Quebec to go its own way.
But the US is a bit different. In some ways the US is a bit more like the EU- a set of mixed sovereignties in which state constitutions have broad power while the federal constitution is quite limited. Restrain on military or federal response to emergency is usually in order to protect localized control.
But the federal constitution has this broad commerce clause and a notion of federal pre-emption.
So in some ways you can think of the US as a big common market with governing body at its head and responsible for federal issues, while most of everything else is left to the states.
So generally, you'd be correct. State power in this case should be controlling.
Except for the exceptions that swallow the rule. In this case much of this has to do with the nature of the national emergency. Add to this executive orders, constitutional preemption, and then the break down of authority at both federal and state levels- makes this a big mess.
But you're right, the issue of the helicopter does seem to thread the line.
You're right, I have argued the military's view here. THe other side is also valid. But most of the players here are playing military characters and thus would probably be biased in that direction. Civilian characters would, I suspect, be uncertain as to which way to go as their preferences are less institutionally informed.
There is no right or wrong answer in this. As in so many questions, the answer is really," it depends."
But the US is a bit different. In some ways the US is a bit more like the EU- a set of mixed sovereignties in which state constitutions have broad power while the federal constitution is quite limited. Restrain on military or federal response to emergency is usually in order to protect localized control.
But the federal constitution has this broad commerce clause and a notion of federal pre-emption.
So in some ways you can think of the US as a big common market with governing body at its head and responsible for federal issues, while most of everything else is left to the states.
So generally, you'd be correct. State power in this case should be controlling.
Except for the exceptions that swallow the rule. In this case much of this has to do with the nature of the national emergency. Add to this executive orders, constitutional preemption, and then the break down of authority at both federal and state levels- makes this a big mess.
But you're right, the issue of the helicopter does seem to thread the line.
You're right, I have argued the military's view here. THe other side is also valid. But most of the players here are playing military characters and thus would probably be biased in that direction. Civilian characters would, I suspect, be uncertain as to which way to go as their preferences are less institutionally informed.
There is no right or wrong answer in this. As in so many questions, the answer is really," it depends."
