Noelle Straub
IMPORTANT: MUST READ!
Wed Jan 19, 2005 17:58
172.147.109.168
Connecting the dots....
Hmm. Why are they passing this provision? Are there plans on the 'backburner' for getting rid of Congress altogether after they perpetrate another 'terrorist attack'?
No doubt.
Congress passes `doomsday' plan
By Noelle Straub
Sunday, January 9, 2005
WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a controversial
doomsday provision that would allow a handful of lawmakers to run Congress
if a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large
numbers of congressmen.
``I think (the new rule) is terrible in a whole host of ways - first, I
think it's unconstitutional,'' said Norm Ornstein, a counselor to the
independent Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan panel
created to study the issue. ``It's a very foolish thing to do, I believe,
and the way in which it was done was more foolish.''
But supporters say the rule provides a stopgap measure to allow the
government to continue functioning at a time of national crisis.
GOP House leaders pushed the provision as part of a larger rules package
that drew attention instead for its proposed ethics changes, most of which
were dropped.
Usually, 218 lawmakers - a majority of the 435 members of Congress - are
required to conduct House business, such as passing laws or declaring war.
But under the new rule, a majority of living congressmen no longer will be
needed to do business under ``catastrophic circumstances.''
Instead, a majority of the congressmen able to show up at the House would
be enough to conduct business, conceivably a dozen lawmakers or less.
The House speaker would announce the number after a report by the House
Sergeant at Arms. Any lawmaker unable to make it to the chamber would
effectively not be counted as a congressman.
The circumstances include ``natural disaster, attack, contagion or similar
calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings
of the House.''
The House could be run by a small number of lawmakers for months, because
House vacancies must be filled by special elections. Governors can make
temporary appointments to the Senate.
Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), one of few lawmakers active on the issue,
argued the rule change contradicts the U.S. Constitution, which states
that ``a majority of each (House) shall constitute a quorum to do
business.
``Changing what constitutes a quorum in this way would allow less than a
dozen lawmakers to declare war on another nation,'' Baird said.
==============================
Politicizing Doomsday
Brown Daily Squeal (satire), NY - 6 hours ago
... "Changing what constitutes a quorum in this way would allow less than
a dozen lawmakers to declare war on another nation,'' Baird said. ...
Doomsday Provision and the Death of the US Constitution
ProgressiveTrail.org, OR - Jan 10, 2005
... US Constitution, which states that ‘a majority of each (House) shall
constitute a quorum to do business’ … ‘Changing what constitutes a quorum
in this ...
Hmm. Why are they passing this provision? Are there plans on the 'backburner' for getting rid of Congress altogether after they perpetrate another 'terrorist attack'?
No doubt.
Congress passes `doomsday' plan
By Noelle Straub
Sunday, January 9, 2005
WASHINGTON - With no fanfare, the U.S. House has passed a controversial
doomsday provision that would allow a handful of lawmakers to run Congress
if a terrorist attack or major disaster killed or incapacitated large
numbers of congressmen.
``I think (the new rule) is terrible in a whole host of ways - first, I
think it's unconstitutional,'' said Norm Ornstein, a counselor to the
independent Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan panel
created to study the issue. ``It's a very foolish thing to do, I believe,
and the way in which it was done was more foolish.''
But supporters say the rule provides a stopgap measure to allow the
government to continue functioning at a time of national crisis.
GOP House leaders pushed the provision as part of a larger rules package
that drew attention instead for its proposed ethics changes, most of which
were dropped.
Usually, 218 lawmakers - a majority of the 435 members of Congress - are
required to conduct House business, such as passing laws or declaring war.
But under the new rule, a majority of living congressmen no longer will be
needed to do business under ``catastrophic circumstances.''
Instead, a majority of the congressmen able to show up at the House would
be enough to conduct business, conceivably a dozen lawmakers or less.
The House speaker would announce the number after a report by the House
Sergeant at Arms. Any lawmaker unable to make it to the chamber would
effectively not be counted as a congressman.
The circumstances include ``natural disaster, attack, contagion or similar
calamity rendering Representatives incapable of attending the proceedings
of the House.''
The House could be run by a small number of lawmakers for months, because
House vacancies must be filled by special elections. Governors can make
temporary appointments to the Senate.
Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), one of few lawmakers active on the issue,
argued the rule change contradicts the U.S. Constitution, which states
that ``a majority of each (House) shall constitute a quorum to do
business.
``Changing what constitutes a quorum in this way would allow less than a
dozen lawmakers to declare war on another nation,'' Baird said.
==============================
Politicizing Doomsday
Brown Daily Squeal (satire), NY - 6 hours ago
... "Changing what constitutes a quorum in this way would allow less than
a dozen lawmakers to declare war on another nation,'' Baird said. ...
Doomsday Provision and the Death of the US Constitution
ProgressiveTrail.org, OR - Jan 10, 2005
... US Constitution, which states that ‘a majority of each (House) shall
constitute a quorum to do business’ … ‘Changing what constitutes a quorum
in this ...
Main Page - Thursday, 01/19/05
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
