What if terrorists kill 100 congressmen?

[NewGuy]

As usual, there is far more. -But Again, as I would say:

This is a COMPLETE scam to take away freedoms through making Constitutional ammendments as common as changing your pants. The first issue was marriage, and now this.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38166

The House of Representatives is expected to vote today on a bill assuring its continued functioning in case large numbers of its members are killed or incapacitated in a terrorist attack or other catastrophe, at the same time preserving the electoral system established by the Founders.

Sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the "Continuity in Representation Act," H.R. 2844, would require states to hold special elections to fill wide-scale vacancies within 45 days after the speaker of the House announces that "extraordinary circumstances" – defined as 100 or more vacancies in the House – exist. Candidates for replacements would be nominated to the ballot by the political parties recognized in various states within 10 days of such an announcement.


Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.

"This legislation provides for a functioning House of Representatives and protects the people's right to elected representation even under the most tragic of circumstances," Sensenbrenner said upon introducing his bill last July. "Under this legislation, our republic will maintain its democratic character and the House will maintain its 'intimate sympathy with the people,' as James Madison wrote in the 'Federalist Papers,' by remaining a body composed only of those members who are elected by the people."

The bill enjoys broad bipartisan support, including the House Leadership and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers of New York and Arkansas Democrat Vic Snyder. Co-sponsors include House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., House Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Steve Chabot, and Reps. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Candice Miller and Tom Cole.

However, the bill has its critics, who complain the proposal is not adequate and that House Republicans are stifling debate on other suggestions that deal with the issue of continuity of government following a disaster. These alternative plans require passage of a constitutional amendment. One suggestion being floated is to grant the governor of a state the authority to appoint successors to vacant offices.

Another, by Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., is a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow each House member to designate a replacement to serve temporarily in the event the member dies or is incapacitated in a catastrophic event. The replacement would serve until a special election is held.

Baird, one of H.R. 2844's harshest detractors, views the bill as "significantly flawed," and is especially critical of what he views as congressional inaction and failure to come to grips with an important matter.

For those of you who are going to do another knee-jerk reaction and take issue with my "paranoid" perspective, lookie at what the Constitution ALREADY says:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

please go on newguy. What is a writ of election? and how different is it?

 

[NewGuy]

I sense an attempted setup.

Therefore here is the definition and you can do the rest:

writ of election

NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. writs of election
A writ issued by a governor or other executive authority requiring that an election be held, especially a special election to fill a vacancy


--As such, the latest movement adds an ammendment for the sake of redundancy just to add one. THAT is the point. As soon as people get used to adding ammendments, they will flurry through and erode MORE freedoms and do so in place of normal legislation.

The Constitution is not a place to legislate behavior, it is to balance power.

 

[nycflasher]

I don't get it. Both the Writ and the newly proposed bill favor almost immediate elections to fill vacancies...right?

Please explain.
In general, I am not in favor of arbitrarily ammending the Constitution either. So maybe we have finally found something we agree on:

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Maybe this is just the result of listening to hours of the old Art Bell show, but isn't there a shadow gov't where, if for instance the congress is nuked while every member is present, there are shadow congressmen for every real congressman and they take their place until the elections can be held?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I don't get it. Both the Writ and the newly proposed bill favor almost immediate elections to fill vacancies...right?

Please explain.
In general, I am not in favor of arbitrarily ammending the Constitution either. So maybe we have finally found something we agree on:

The reason you don't get it is the same reason I said what I did.

As Americans who live generations after slow corrupting government has been allowed to withdraw power from people and give it to government, we no longer KNOW what our Constitution even says. Most here don't even know HOW to read it. -And for the most part, this is a conservative board!

The reason this happens is because the dumber the citizens are, the less we can defend ourselves. The more we depend on and trust our politicians/military/law makers/police, the less we WANT to be individually responsible for our liberties, and thus start to support a Constitutional Dictatorship.

-That is what is going on here. By supposing a mean-nothing ammendment, on the heels of a possible "marriage ammendment", we have the populace thinking ANY LAW belongs in the Constitution. They don't realize that we are talking about an irrevocable law, the highest in the land, and nobody can challenge it EVER. FOR ANY REASON. -Once it is deemed Constitutional.

The Constitution gives freedom to people. It balances power to Branches and the populace. It DOES NOT EXIST TO TELL US HOW TO BEHAVE. That is the job of lower courts and lower level law.

If you think ALL of your elected leaders and politicians who swore to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION do NOT know this, then they are incompetent or corrupt. Because we are talking about the majority and they go across ALL PARTY LINES, and because they are all EDUCATED, guess what that means?

CORRUPTION.

This is the beginning of the end of liberty in America.

All because we wanted "peace and security" at any price. -Including our own liberty.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Maybe this is just the result of listening to hours of the old Art Bell show, but isn't there a shadow gov't where, if for instance the congress is nuked while every member is present, there are shadow congressmen for every real congressman and they take their place until the elections can be held?

There is, actually.

It was created years ago, and Bush added a few provisions last I heard.

All of this is completely unconstitutional as well.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

newguy. no set up. why should we care about this emergency election thing?

What's the difference between a writ of election and elections in 45 day?

 

[Zhukov]

I realize your concern about redundant ammendments NewGuy, but in this instance it seems the difference in the proposed legislation involves an important deadline.

The clause does not say how long the state Governor has to submit the Writ of Election. That clause was also likely intended to address individual absences in Congress, not the absence of hundreds of Congressmen.

In the event of a catastrophic attack against our elected officials in Washington D.C. the time it takes for us to re-constitute our government should be as short as possible.

Consequently, this legislation may be a good idea. Personally, I think 45 days is too long. I would like a selected replacement to fill in during that 45 day period, which is a combination of two of the ideas proposed.

Of course a simple piece of legislation putting a deadline on a Governor's time to issue a Writ of Election would be fine.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
why should we care about this emergency election thing?

What's the difference between a writ of election and elections in 45 day?

Copycat

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Copycat

A good question is a good question. even a broken clock is right twice a day!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
newguy. no set up. why should we care about this emergency election thing?

What's the difference between a writ of election and elections in 45 day?

You should care that the people we elected are corrupt enough to throw redundant laws into a Constitution where:

1. THEY DON'T BELONG
2. THEY ARE ALREADY LISTED
3. THEY ARE NON-REVOCABLE

Considering all of these people are supposed to KNOW what is IN the Constitution, this is sheer corruption. They are desensitizing us to the potential for passing ammendments.

What will you do when they make marriage an ammendment?
What will you do when violation of privacy (in the name of combating terrorism) becomes an ammendment?
What will you do when there is no law but the Constitution and nothing is left to grant you liberty?

Are you going to sue?

Against what?

With what power?

Are you going to start a revolution?

With whose guns? Those will be banned through gun control and licensing databases being used to take out rebels before uprising.

-They already do that under the guise of combating "terrorism" or cases like Waco. (which by the way, no matter what he did, Koresh WAS a licensed gun dealer.)

The point here is that if you don't care now, it will be too late later.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I realize your concern about redundant ammendments NewGuy, but in this instance it seems the difference in the proposed legislation involves an important deadline.

The clause does not say how long the state Governor has to submit the Writ of Election. That clause was also likely intended to address individual absences in Congress, not the absence of hundreds of Congressmen.

In the event of a catastrophic attack against our elected officials in Washington D.C. the time it takes for us to re-constitute our government should be as short as possible.

Consequently, this legislation may be a good idea. Personally, I think 45 days is too long. I would like a selected replacement to fill in during that 45 day period, which is a combination of two of the ideas proposed.

Of course a simple piece of legislation putting a deadline on a Governor's time to issue a Writ of Election would be fine.

Is it to anyones advantage to wait on a new election if government NEEDS to respond?

No.

It is common sense. OF COURSE a new election will be held immediately. If a deadline is required, which I cannot envision a scenario where it WOULD be, then fine. Pass a LAW, not a Constitutional ammendment.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Is it to anyones advantage to wait on a new election if government NEEDS to respond?

No.

It is common sense. OF COURSE a new election will be held immediately.

You underestimate the power of a political agenda. Based on recent events and behavior, I would not be so quick to assume such a thing.

Pass a LAW, not a Constitutional ammendment.

Can one pass a simple law that clarifies a clause of the Constitution, and is legally binding?

 

[pegwinn]

Ok, I think I get it. They are introducing legislation under Article One, Section four:

"Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. "

I even get the paranoia that accompanied someone writing and co-sponsoring this bill when there is a workable process in place.

But what makes them think the states would delay even 45 days?
And, just for my own curiosity, how does this pave the way for easy amendments?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
You underestimate the power of a political agenda. Based on recent events and behavior, I would not be so quick to assume such a thing.

Given that original government formation was designed to tie up processes on purpose I would consider it a GOOD thing. When the government is in danger of going down because of mass casualty, their own desire to survive will DEMAND elections immediately.

Can one pass a simple law that clarifies a clause of the Constitution, and is legally binding?

-Therein lies the rub. They cannot. BUT Congress can pass requirements for their own behavioral policies outside of the Constitution. It need not be a part of the Constitution, nor a clarification of it. It is simply a clarification of timing of behavior which would be Constitutional.

Article 1 Section 8 -In regard to what Congress may do: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. "

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by pegwinn

But what makes them think the states would delay even 45 days?
And, just for my own curiosity, how does this pave the way for easy amendments?

1. They don't think, that is the issue. They are playing us.

2. This was only brought up after Americans got into a "marriage ammendment" debate where most people decided it HAD to be one way or the other.

Nobody even cared that we were talking about an AMMENDMENT and the seriousness of it. They only cared about their side winning.

This follows on the same supposition.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
When the government is in danger of going down because of mass casualty, their own desire to survive will DEMAND elections immediately.

One would hope so.

BUT Congress can pass requirements for their own behavioral policies outside of the Constitution. It need not be a part of the Constitution, nor a clarification of it. It is simply a clarification of timing of behavior which would be Constitutional.

Well, that would obviously be preferable.

 

[pegwinn]

If I am reading correctly this bill is just waht the board members are advocating, a law vice an amendment. I haven't seen anything that actually amends the constitution. I have heard that there are others who are proposing an amendment, but i didn't gather they had enough steam to get the whole convention process going.

http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=4841051
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.2844:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108SBTVPR::

 

[NewGuy]

I just realized I forgot the link. It is there now.

However, the bill looks to be a shorter time frame than the news article reported.

Again, it doesn't derail from anything discussed, but it is a shorter timespan. To me, that just makes the people want to pass it all the more because perception is that we "need to function" right after an attack.