Posted on 01/26/2004 7:27:13 AM PST by jmc813
In the months following the September 11th terrorist attacks, questions arose about whether Congress could continue to function if many of its members were killed or injured in a future terrorist attack. These concerns resulted in the creation of a commission that advocated a first in American history, namely the appointment of individuals to the U.S. House. A constitutional amendment has been proposed that would provide the method for such appointments following a catastrophe that killed or disabled a majority of the people in Congress.
I strongly oppose this constitutional amendment, because I believe an appointed Congress would become an unaccountable, tyrannical Congress. Over the past year I met with top scholars, attorneys, and colleagues who reject the idea of an appointed House of Representatives. Fortunately, we had success in turning many members of Congress against the proposal through a series of public lectures, meetings, and published articles. Legislation I cosponsored, recently passed by the House Judiciary committee, will enable congressional districts around the nation to hold emergency elections without resorting to political appointments. The bill has the support of congressional leadership, and should reach the House floor in coming months.
At its heart, the proposed constitutional amendment is fundamentally at odds with the right of the people always to elect their members of the House of Representatives. The term “appointed representative” clearly is an oxymoron. The House, designed as the most directly representative branch of government, must be elected to have any legitimacy. Even “temporary” appointees would be unacceptable, because the laws passed would be permanent.
Those advocating an appointed Congress argue that a U.S. House consisting of only a handful of surviving members would not be seen as legitimate by the public. In fact the opposite is true: the legitimacy of appointed “representatives” would be strongly questioned, especially by those who disagreed with their actions. Appointees would be viewed suspiciously as recipients of political patronage, regardless of the system put in place to appoint them. Appointees would not be seen as legitimate because they would in fact not be legitimate. Without exception, every member of the House of Representatives has been elected for over two hundred years. We can amend the Constitution, but we cannot force the public to accept the loss of its voting franchise.
One very important point should be emphasized: the Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I section 2 instructs state governors to hold special elections to fill congressional vacancies, while Article I section 4 authorizes Congress to designate the “time, place, and manner” of such special elections if states should fail to act quickly following a national emergency. The legislation passed by the Judiciary committee simply exercises the existing congressional power by requiring states to hold special elections within 21 days after the House Speaker or acting Speaker declares that a majority of House members are incapacitated.
To quote Charles Rice, a distinguished Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School, “When it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend the Constitution.” We must not allow the fear of terrorism to compel us to abandon our existing institutions-- including an elected House. The Constitution is our best ally in times of relative crisis, and it is precisely during such times we should adhere to it rather than rush to amend it.
Richard W.
I have a little more faith in the residents of flyover country.
Hmmm. Well, what about temporarily returning legislative authority back to the respective state leges while Congress is re-elected? How hard is that? The executive branch already has survivability, who the hell needs Congress in an emergency????
There - I've fixed your post :)
You have got to be kidding!
I suspect, but I don't know, that the state legislatures (or the governor) of each state would do the 'appointing' ...
Ron doesn't state this, because, after all, he needs to 'get a rise' out of his audience (those to whom he is targeting this article).
If somebody has more info - by all means post it!
Exactly! Like federal judges who rule by fiat.
We went through this 'drill' for Y2K. Were you around these parts then?
Wrong. Anarchy would not ensue. You underestimate the people who are the nation.
Exactly. Thank you for the corrections!
From the US Constitution:
Amendment XVIIThe Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
VACANCIES AMONG PUBLIC OFFICERS
ELECTED AT STATE ELECTIONS
661:5 United States Senator. If a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator, the governor shall fill the vacancy by temporary appointment until the next state general election, when a senator shall be elected for the unexpired term.661:6 United States Representative. If a vacancy occurs in the office of United States representative, the governor with advice of council shall, as soon as practicable, have precepts issued to the selectmen of the towns and cities in the district where the vacancy exists directing them to call a special state general election on the day he designates to fill the vacancy. Such election shall be conducted as provided in RSA 661:11 and shall fill the vacancy for the unexpired term.
Temporary appointments aren't something that would put this nation in jeopardy. Permitting terrorists to be able to choose which states (the coasts) lead/control this country (by striking predominately at those who support the war effort) would be dangerous.
Which is worse being legislated over by a subset of the full Congress (only permitting "elected" members to vote) or being legislated over by a Congress composed of by members from every state (some of whom are temporarily appointed by the Governors of those states)?
How pessimistic and nearsighted!
Without the continuation of some sort of 'chain of command' (including the civilian portion: congress and the executive branches) none of those disaster relief agencies will do anything!
Does the National Guard call itself out? Of course not ... neither do any of the other alphabet agencies ...
Not to some 'pipple'. Some 'pipple' insist on 'fighting the last war' all over again ...
I hate to say it, 'cause I'll 'draw fire', but Ron Paul is just grandstanding again ...
Sure it can. Judges make law right now.
How are they going to designate the “time, place, and manner” of such special elections if they're all dead? If such a procedure is not yet in place, then now is the time to designate the time frames, places, and manners for each state, district, etc. and the procedures for implementing each phase.
Proposed? Where? By whom?
Ron Paul is such a lying sack that even when one agrees with his point his nonsensical psycho views (not unlike those of the fringe left) leave little question his overview is purposely distorted and dishonest and is not to be taken seriously.
Exactly! Congress does not run the country. The Executive Branch does. And the survivability mechanisms have been in place for a long time (Can these people spell FEMA?).
At best this is a non-issue raised by people who have no idea how our federal government works. At worst this is another naked power grab!
My thoughts exactly. There was actually an editorial about this in Investors Business Daily a year or two ago.
That was great a rant. Biting and ignorant at the same time.
Sen Cornyn proposed the Amendment which reads:
"The Congress may by law provide for the case of death or inability of Members of the House of Representatives, and the case of inability of Members of the Senate, in the event that one-fourth of either House are killed or incapacitated, declaring who shall serve until the disability is removed, or a new Member is elected. Any procedures established pursuant to such a law shall expire not later than 120 days after the death or inability of one-fourth of the House of Representatives or the Senate, but may be extended for additional 120-day periods if one-fourth of either the House of Representatives or the Senate remains vacant or occupied by members unable to serve."
I don't think you are seeing the entire picture here. The coastal states do not comprise the majority of congress as far as the number of congress-critters are concerned, though there are quite a few.
In a catastrophe that size we wouldn't need congress to declare war, the individual states would do what they could to preserve what they could.
Read this from Ron Paul above: "I strongly oppose this constitutional amendment, because I believe an appointed Congress would become an unaccountable, tyrannical Congress."
Yeah, I can just see a President Hillary leading the charge to 'appoint' congress.
I don't think that Ron Paul is noticing the catastrophy, and anarchy of such an event.
On the contrary, catastrophe is exactly what he is trying to avoid. Anarchy, on the other hand, is held in check by the elected President, using his executive authority, not by Congress.
In such an event, the elected President would continue to have full executive authority. There are no emergency powers that the elected President would be denied, while Congress was being reconstituted by the voters in each district. Congress is by definition, a behemoth that moves ponderously. A 21 day delay in getting new legislation passed would be nominal. During that 21 days, the elected President would still be able to issue Executive Orders. But, unlike the permanent laws that would be passed by an un-elected Congress, those Executive Orders would be subject to being overridden by the incoming elected Congress. The reason that the laws passed by an un-elected Congress would be effectively permanent, is that the un-elected members would have the advantage of incumbency in the next election and many would retain those seats for decades.
Even after the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, Congress did nothing of import for days. Oh, Sheila Jackson Lee and others took the opportunity to get their faces on television. But, Congress did nothing. It was not within their power to take any immediate action. The elected President did however, take immediate steps (within hours) to insure against further such attacks. Congress didn't ground all of the aircraft, that day. The elected President did. That's how it is supposed to work.
The only way that I could accept an appointed, un-elected Congress, is if 1) they were temporary, serving only until an elected Congress could be seated, which should occur no more than 3 days after a special election to be held within 21 days, 2) the un-elected Congressmen would not be eligible to sit for election in that special election (no incumbency advantage) and 3) any laws passed by the un-elected Congress would automatically sunset 45 days after the elected Congress was constituted, if not already overridden by the elected Congress (the elected Congress would have to pass their own versions of those bills if they deemed them necessary).
But, as I pointed out above, since the elected President retains full executive authority, even when Congress is not in session, there is no need, even for such provisions as those outlined in the previous paragraph. Ron Paul is indeed, trying to avoid the almost certain catastrophe that would follow an appointed Congress. In such a Congress, there would be no young newcomers, who had not yet been corrupted by the political system, to raise a voice of dissent. They would all be political insiders, who were long beholden to the party leadership. Pardon me. But, judging from where the party leadership of both parties has taken those parties, in the last few years, that's a scarier scenario than no Congress at all, for as much as several months.
Once again, Ron Paul is there to speak up for the people, when few others will. Thank you, Congressman Paul.
Of course there's no Constitutional Authority to hand power over to FEMA that I'm aware of.
Gee Ron, how is that any different from today ??
Anarchy? Anarchy is when you can never tell if your person or property will be violated by an unaccountable third party, like Congress, for example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.