"What, then, are the distinctive characteristics of the republican form? ... If we resort for a criterion ... we may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.  It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it ... It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified ..." - James Madison, The Federalist No. 39, January 16th, 1788, describing republicanism as embodied in our Constitution. 

    "The principal purposes to be answered to be answered by the Union are these - the common defence of the members - the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsion as external attacks - the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States - the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 23, December 18th, 1787, describing the purposes of federalism.

Should the Military take the Lead Role in Response and Relief Efforts?

by Robert J. Romano

September 26th, 2005

Updated September 28th, 2005*

Short of controlling the weather, there is not much that could have been done to prevent the catastrophic hurricane strikes that have devastated the Gulf Coast in the past month.  However, there has been much criticism leveled at all levels of government for a slow response effort in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, in particular, the will of authorities to expedite the evacuation of individuals and families from New Orleans before the hurricane hit, and after it did, their capability to move thousands to safety in the most efficient manner and to maintain civil order.  Clearly, the mandatory evacuation should have come before the levees broke and flooded the city, and the importance of preempting a disaster's arrival, especially one which has a few days warning such as a storm, has only been highlighted by the successful evacuations that took place in Houston as Hurricane Rita approached.  Of course, not all disasters can be predicted, like the weather with any reasonable certainty, and it is those unforseen events, such as an attack, an earthquake, or a tsunami, which will in the future require an immediate response effort in order to save lives.  What is clear is that we should have moved faster, and that we can move faster in the event of another catastrophe.

        This truth has led several people, including the President, to question whether the military ought to take the lead role in disaster response efforts.  On September 25th, at a briefing in Texas, President Bush stated: "The other question, of course, I asked, was, is there a circumstance in which the Department of Defense becomes the lead agency. Clearly, in the case of a terrorist attack, that would be the case, but is there a natural disaster which -- of a certain size that would then enable the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort. That's going to be a very important consideration for Congress to think about."

        This has raised several eyebrows, and soon it will probably become increasingly ironic as the very people who had criticized the Federal government for not responding fast enough shall criticize yet again a change in the laws which would grant authority to the military under the direction of the President to intervene on behalf of the State and local governments.  But the question probably could be framed this way: when it comes to life and limb, saving lives, and accomplishing this in the most efficient manner conceivable, is there any force better equipped than the military to have the plans and the capability to coordinate them? Or better yet, in the instance where a massive effort is called for, is an elected official always the best type of leader to have? Clearly, when seconds count, and when civil order depends on an effective state response, only the orderly chain-of-command will work at making certain that all levels of the response are completing the necessary tasks.   

         When local and State governments are overwhelmed with a calamity, it is reasonable that the Federal government would intervene with all that it is capable of providing for the immediate response and the relief which follows.  Just what do we mean by a "state of emergency"? Just what should that entail in terms of the Federal response? While there is much that we can do to aid in the relief efforts by donating to aid organizations like the American Red Cross, in order for those aid organizations to get into any area to do their good works, it is necessary that the geographic region in question and the people who can be trapped be relieved in the quickest time practical.  The government's first and foremost responsibility is providing for the safety of the people, and judging by the failure of civil authorities in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it is no wonder that the Congress would now consider military options to cope with an immediate need for a rescue, response, and relief effort from a catastrophe.

        If a nuclear attack ever occurred, the need for evacuation being coordinated by the military would hardly be questioned, and in the event of an emergency of a very large scale occurring from natural causes, it is just as reasonable to expect a military response to assist local and State governments through their ability to lead and coordinate those efforts.  The President has the right idea.

        [Undoubtedly, this would require a Constitutional amendment to enumerate such a power, since those powers not delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution are therein granted to the States and the people.  Under present law, the State does not lose its sovereign powers to order an evacuation even when one is necessary, as was seen in the case of New Orleans, where it is obvious in hindsight that one should have been ordered.  The Government must consider an appropriate balance of powers between the Federal, State, and local levels of government, and determine what happens when the local level fails, and then the State, and if it is reasonable for the Federal government to have the authority to intervene on behalf of the State and local levels of government to ensure that adequate safety and security measures are taken in the event of a catastrophe.]*