SOVEREIGNTY RESTORED

We need to rethink the concept of sovereignty in terms of catastrophic thinking. A Constitutional Amendment should be adopted to assure that our country will operate smoothly in catastrophic circumstances. After the Civil War, there was considerable hostility to northern Union forces occupying the South. As a result, a compromise was reached which created a doctrine that the judiciary would rule as long as it existed, and no military forces, martial law, or suspension of habeas corpus should be allowed. Known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, it prohibits the use of the armed forces to enforce the law. This law has served us well since the Civil War, but we saw this doctrine sorely tested by local natural disasters like Katrina. The history of martial law is a fascinating study, with Hawaii during World War II and the Supreme Court opinion of Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) being good starting places. As a Catastrophist, one of the critical tools of CAVEAT is SUSTAINABILITY; known in part in FEMA as CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT.

We need to clearly define how the government will function in times of catastrophe. The Constitution must define what a catastrophe is, and what measures a crippled government can take if we suffer from a cataclysm. It should all be worked out in advance, so we can act immediately, without debate, in times of crisis. To begin with, I propose a Constitutional process to be called a Declaration of Catastrophe, which among its many effects, is the imposition of martial law within a defined zone of catastrophe. I humbly propose, we set automatic triggers in which either the President or what is left of Congress may proclaim a catastrophe. The automatic triggers are (1) X thousands of dead Americans, (2) X millions of homeless Americans, OR (3) X millions of destroyed homes which cannot be rebuilt. Perhaps this prong could be triggered by permanent destruction of the catastrophe zone infrastructure. Many other laws would automatically take place, simply by a Declaration of Catastrophe, like the suspension of all forms of insurance and implementation of the affected States’ own catastrophe plans, like where the state capital is automatically relocated to.

It could be that a state or states are substantially obliterated and should have their statehood revoked, like a super volcano eruption in Yellowstone destroying Wyoming or sea rise destroying Delaware and/or Rhode Island. If the state is gone forever, they should not have Senators or Representatives voting for them, but rather as their citizens relocate to other states, the citizens should vote there. The determination should be automatic, when a threshold or thresholds are reached. If a catastrophe destroys these thresholds as defined by the Census Bureau, following a declaration of catastrophe, then the statehood is automatically dissolved and the state is merged with a bordering state. May I suggest that the Constitutional process use several prongs, all of which must be met before a state loses its statehood. One prong could be habitable land, defined as a full square mile in which there is an occupied dwelling. If a state loses eighty per cent (80%) of its habitable land, then it loses its statehood. Another prong is when eighty per cent (80%) of its population has left the state and now reside elsewhere or are dead or unaccounted for. Mere homelessness is not enough, nor is refugee status as long as a refugee claims their residence is now an obliterated address. The third strike is open; in the blog you can suggest a workable third prong in a catastrophic setting. When does a state cease to be a state? Perhaps 2/3 of Congress must ratify the determination of the Census Bureau. I hesitate to suggest that prong because it introduces politics into the process. One party would defend the statehood no matter what, because their party currently has control of the state Senate seats, for example, Republicans would oppose the loss of Wyoming, while Democrats would oppose the loss of Rhode Island. If that prong were adopted, there would be the unseemly Congressional deal like trading dissolution of statehoods.

Many of the developments in the law of sovereignty have made our government far less functional and should be addressed as part of the Catastrophe Amendment. The federal government and many states have abolished the law of sovereign immunity, allowing citizens to sue their state or the federal government. In a catastrophe, this doctrine must be restored. Further, any pending cases should be dismissed as a matter of law—the Catastrophe laws. Again, the rule in a catastrophe is that losses fall where they may, and any further litigation is simply a burden a recovering society has no resources to allocate to such distractions.

Another silly development which should be banned by Constitutional Amendment is the '“sanctuary cities” which may defy national or state law. Somehow, this must not be allowed to be in any times, let alone times of cataclysms. The idea that mere municipalities can make their own laws contrary to the pre-emption of that policy by the federal government makes government unworkable. We will have no time or resources to deal with such nonsense in a catastrophe. I have no idea how to draft such a Constitutional Amendment and so encourage blogs with suggested language.