The idea that we need a backup federal government is frightening. If, God forbid, every Washington politician were killed in an atomic blast, the Constitution would still be the law of the land and order would subsequently be restored. Frankly, I don't see how getting a fresh start in Washington could be at all bad for this country. (Yes, I'm being somewhat sarcastic.)
What about regional/national networks? And how long would "subsequent" be? Who would be running the Department of Defense, Border Patrol, etc., during "subsequent"? Philosophically, what you're saying sounds nice, but not very realistic. I'd also like you to show me where the Constitution forbids it.
It doesn't work that way. In order for the government to do something it has to show where the Constitution allows it (see the 9th and 10th Amendments). Just because the Constitution doesn't specifically forbid something doesn't mean the government can do it. The founders were pretty clear on that point.
I did not say it, but I certainly agree with it.
I'd also like you to show me where the Constitution forbids it.
I'm assuming by this statement you are referring to the shadow government. I cannot show you where the Constituiton forbids it. Nowhere will you find it forbidden in the Constitution. The Constituiton simply enumerates or lists those powers that are granted to the government by the people. Now, the last time I read through it, I saw no clause that allowed the creation of a "backup government" for when the manure strikes the prop, or for any other situation for that matter. There is one government in this country, and that one government derives the whole of its power from what is enumerated in the Constitution. Simply put, if it aint enumerated, they aint got the power to do it. You and I both know that that went out the window with Lincoln. Does that make it right? Is it okay that we've managed to putt along so far in violation of the Constitution? It seems to be the norm, but is that right? Should it not matter what the law of the land is or says, because we've been breaking so many of them for so long that it's become standard operational procedure?
Those are somewhat rhetorical question. I don't really need an answer. I know what my answer is, and I take comfort in it. If your answer is different than mine, but it works for you, who am I to say you're wrong? I might argue the facts with you, but the bottom line is, God forbid, should it happen, the nuclear scenario you mentioned, you nor anybody else other than those in my immediate circle of family, will matter one whit. And I will not matter to you and yours. If it happens, chaos will reign, regardless of the best laid plans of mice and men. Can one really have a foolproof plan for doomsday? Think about it.
Or, so far as that goes, where it forbids throwing Japanese-Americans into concentration camps after the Pearl Harbor attack, though that was found to be an unconstitutional act by the US Sopreme Court long after the fact. And, had the Japs actually landed on the West Coast during WWII, would we have shot or gassed to death the inmates of those camps, as per the operational instructions in the event of an attempted riot or takeover of one of them?
Show me where the Constitution forbids it.
-archy-/-