The law already allows it in case of terror attacks, but not natural disasters. What governor would have so little pride in his or her state that they would give up control? In Pennsylvania, the Governor successfully sued the federal government to prove he had control over the national guard of his state.
Meanwhile, in New Orleans, the local government told people to go to the convention center, and then locked them in and forgot to tell FEMA they were in there until wednesday or thursday. According to Geraldo they won't let them out of the room.
I'm still trying to figure out how people who haven't eaten or drank in 4 days would have the strength to speak so loudly their complaints about how they were being treated.
Or how they could refrain from beating up Geraldo in the hopes to find some candy bars.
Why are all the news networks down there with power interviewing people that are "starving to death", but they didn't bring any food with them? If they can get their camera crews there, why can't they get food and water?
I think they have had food and water,just not as much as they would like. Probably severely rationed.
And I still don't get how the local government told people where to go, told them they would be taken in buses, and then failed to get the buses or tell anybody else the plan.
I saw the mayor this afternoon, he looked like he had been eating quite well, and he was in front of trucks of supplies -- Why didn't he just direct the trucks over to where he had told people to wait for food?
I'm sorry. I don't see how the President of the United States is supposed to be ordering buses around. Or how he is supposed to know what the new orleans mayor is telling people to do.
Or how the federal government is expected to take over a state without the state making a request.
Your points are all well taken but I'm speculating that the political fallout will change the relationship between the states and the Federal govt re: disaster response.
I don't know what case you are referring to. The only ones I'm aware of concerned whether the feds could send guardsmen overseas for their 2 week annual tour. (To places the (usually 'Rat) Governor didn't want any US military sent. The Court ruled that during the annual tour the Guardsmen are wearing their federal hat, and the governor has no say in where or how that annual training is conducted.
But, as long as the Guard is not federalized, over which the governors have no say, they are under the command of the governor who is free to send them anywhere (within the state or outside with the permission of or at the request of the governor of the other state) she/he chooses.)