"This Luey don't even got a weapon."

Understanding that I can't possibly account for every contingency, emergency or disaster, nor their individual scope, I would say that it should be policy that federal intervention be limited to a few scenarios.

1.) At the request of the State. Meaning if I am a State's rights advocate then surely I must concede they have a "right" to request outside assistance, even federal, that I can not deny. However, it is still the responsibility of the feds to not overstep their bounds, using an inch to take a mile, and not giving into gratuitous requests. On what constitutes a "mile" or "gratuitous" I can only say what a Supreme Court Chief Justice once said about pornography - I'll know it when I see it. And so should the respective governors and CiCs.

2.) This request should be a means of last resort. If it is clear that state resources aren't up to the task the federal assistance should kick in at state's end, not instead of state resources.

3.) A governor should retain the right of refusal (barring a foreign attack & pre set conditions that meet the need for FBI involvement in domestic attacks).

Now these are generalities off the top of my head. The point is the "new norm" should be as it once was, as it was intended to be - the state assumes first responsibility. I read once of a State, I want to say it was Iowa, that due to extreme flooding the president (might have been TR, maybe Wilson, early 20th Century) sent outside relief workers, deputized as federal. They were stopped by the sheriff and constables at the State boarder, told "NO, this is an internal matter," and turned around. My God, how far have we come from that?

Also, having a "regional pact", like a South Eastern NATO consortium of relief that could service say TX, LA, MS, AL, GA & FL, put together, organized and managed solely by the member states. Pooling local states into emergency relief assistance programs/teams should be preferable to calling on the feds. I mean once Texas & the others come to the aide of MS, in an organized way with organized teams, Texas will be gone, period. And MS can kick them out at their leisure were things going poorly - try that with the feds. Not to mention as a contributing member you'd have real, local, hands on control at the state level. I mean it didn't work out so great during the last Southern "confederation", but we've learned from our mistakes I think. There are several different approaches such as this idea and the one in my last that allow for "assistance" and emergency readiness outside of the knee jerk reaction of dialing 1-800-FEDERAL (that's probably a real number by the way). And that is the course states should be plotting. A governor should look at federal assistance to his State the same way an individual should look at food stamps - a matter of last resort to stave off starvation, an almost social embarrassment that you work immediately to correct, when used at all. Unfortunately too many States abusively suckle from the fed the same way too many individuals abusively suckle from social safety nets. And I think the ultimate abuse is around the corner - State bail outs. That's the end game. Forget State autonomy after that.