Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

April 22, 2016

Friday Free Forum

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Arnold Bogis on April 22, 2016

William R. Cumming Forum

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn


Comment by William R. Cumming

April 22, 2016 @ 1:34 pm

CRS on Earthquake program. Note link!


Note that FEMA was the statutory lead agency from 1980-2002 when Congress reacting to the reduced FEMA roles under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred the lead to NTIS [?]!

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 22, 2016 @ 1:37 pm

Under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), four federal agencies have responsibility for long-term earthquake risk reduction: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 24, 2016 @ 1:34 am

I believe Professor Bacevich’s article linked above worth reading. But I respectfully disagree with his conclusion that the Armed Forces are inadequate for our FP.

My conclusion is that there is no coherent U.S. FP so unless one established is equation in error.

What could become a coherent U.S. FP is one based on defending the nation-state system [admittedly not perfect or entirely peaceful in effect since the Treaties of Westphalia [1648].

And perhaps also basing FP on the First Amendment and equal rights for women.

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 25, 2016 @ 4:15 am

Notice disappearance of comments. 14 posted so far with 4 showing. If the blog continues needs to be restarted on another blogging system or ended IMO!

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 25, 2016 @ 8:41 am

I have long argued that a coherent FP [foreign policy] for the U.S.A. would be to announce support for the nation-state system largely created by the Treaties of Westphalia [1648] in an un-perfect attempt to quell wars between religions and sects of religions. With the add on that the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and equal rights for women be an added ingredient.

The language of the 1st Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

With respect to freedom of religion and the resultant separation of Church and State the language was in fact to protect government from religion. A key separation of church and state issue may be decided this term by SCOTUS as well as a number of other potentially disruptive policies. E.G. What is the scope of the “implied powers” of the Presidency?

This discussion seems to me to be fundamental to HS and EM for many reasons. And why are no candidates explaining the risk management and analysis principles underlying the protection or limits on protection of the citizens and residents of the U.S.?

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 25, 2016 @ 9:13 am

Another FP post link-sorry if you fail to understand why this is important to HS!


Comment by William R. Cumming

April 25, 2016 @ 11:54 am

Apparently the Annual Preparedness Report for 2016 not yet public but for prior reports see the following link:


Comment by William R. Cumming

April 26, 2016 @ 10:16 am

In 1960 Planet Earth’s population of humans around 3 billion. Now well over 7 billion! What impacts has this had on HS and EM worldwide?

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 27, 2016 @ 2:15 am

Will Trump or Clinton rationalize HS and EM for efficiency and effectiveness?

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 27, 2016 @ 2:32 am


Is this an important legacy of President Obama?

IMO President Obama and Administrator Fugate have had an almost historic easy ride on domestic disasters? Agree/disagree?

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 28, 2016 @ 12:48 am

CIP [critical infrastructure protection] was a principal reason for the formation of DHS including cyber-security. My top three always have included WMD [BENICE?] proliferation and protection as Numero Uno. With collection, processing, dissemination of domestic surveillance as Number three. That last item also was supposed to include protection of privacy and civil rights and civil liberties. No comment has ever been posted on my ranking or listing. And wondering whether others believe DHS formed only after legislation creating it passed the Senate to which the Bush/Cheney Administration reacted?

If Cruz and Forina take office they have amazing academic and job experience credentials IMO. What experience makes for an effective Presidency?

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 28, 2016 @ 6:50 am

The house of Representatives unanimously passed a House version of the Bill linked below and now the Senate expected to take up the House passed version:


Comment by William R. Cumming

April 28, 2016 @ 7:16 am

This may be repetitive but hoping still relevant to HS and EM:

From: VacationLaneGrp@aol.com Sent: Thu 10/14/2010 10:45 AM
To: Comments@acus.gov
Cc: disaster_law@lists.berkeley.edu

Dear Mr Chairman (Paul):
I was in your law class of 1967 and followed your career with great interest even during your law school years. So first thanks so very much for your continuing contributions to the public dialogue and the public interest. Preemption is a wonderful topic to tackle by the ACUS.
I have read with great interest the proposed draft by Ms. Sharkey. I understand your necessary focus on regulatory aspects. On that score the SCOTUS has not been of assistance because of their constant wandering all over the place on preemption. It does appear that a review of SCOTUS decisions could reach the conclusion that implied preemption of any sort in the regulating and rulemaking context is out and preemption even by agencies with great expertise and discretion unless Congress specifically addresses preemption no such implied preemption can occur. I think the paper and ACUS should address this point and can either agree or disagree with my conclusion.
But I am also very interested in the status of federalism generally especially during the current fiscal crisis of the STATE’s and their local governments. So I suggest a disclaimer that your paper and concerns for now include only Commerce Clause regulation and not anything else. But it should also note that much federal preemption including that of the National Security State is eroding the federal system. Adoption for example of federal criminal laws or national security positions that fail to recognize that much activity under especially Article I Section 8 [the so-called Tax and Spend clause] of the Constitution is de facto preemption and in fact often implied preemption. These areas are significant in eroding the underpinnings of the founders judgements in my opinion and perhaps such a disclaimer would be indication that you believe these areas of preemption [all arenas of preemption other than the Commerce Clause] may deserve future study.
I cite as one example the National Flood Insurance Program (42 USC 4001 and following) for which ACUS did a short study on that programs usage of scientific and technical information in the 1970’s. That program’s regulations at 44 CFR Part 59 and following particularly in the land use arena but also the insurance arena impliedly pre-empt state law. I have tried to get the expert committees in Congress to look at that situation without result. Perhaps a topic for ACUS further research.
In addition to non-Commerce clause preemption which I think should be flat out tied into the Supremacy Clause in the final ACUS paper I think a review of how STATE Supreme Courts have handled federalism issues might be quite constructive.
I have high hopes for your time as Chairman and you have always delivered in the past to my expectations. So thanks again for all your hard work.
Request that this e-mail be included in your Preemption Docket and Review Files. I again emphasize that despite this issue largely falling to the realization that the President is Chief Executive, the shadowy preemption of state authority by the role of the President as Commander-In-Chief is a worry issues of comity in the world of preemption are not well explored by legal or other academic scholars. So looking forward to this challenge.
I also am convinced that if the federal scheme adopted by the founders is to thrive preemption is the cutting edge. Whether we have a federal system in name only or more substantively may in fact rest on the outcome of this discussion and analysis.
Thanks again to you and your staff for taking on this important very important issue. SCOTUS and the Congress and the Executive Branch has not been very helpful with consistent positions on even Commerce Clause Preemption.
Regards Bill

“We are members of one great body, planted by nature in a mutual love, and fitted for a social life. We must consider that we were born for the good of the whole”—Seneca

Comment by WilliamGet

May 6, 2016 @ 1:51 pm

Say, you got a nice forum topic.Thanks Again. Keep writing.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>