Home > Congress passes ’doomsday’ plan- ethics rule changes were diversion

Congress passes ’doomsday’ plan- ethics rule changes were diversion

by Open-Publishing - Tuesday 11 January 2005
6 comments

Governments USA

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. <b>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.</b> 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 thata 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.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...

Forum posts

  • And, it’s completely unnecessary, since it would not take long for a state to appoint a representative to take over until the next election.

  • isn’t this the way the system works now - a mere handful of insiders making back room decisions that effect everyone?

  • Democratic lawmakers might want to avoid all gathering together in one place from now on.

    • My reaction to the new law exactly. If the Democrats (and moderate Republicans) do not cooperate with what the Bush wants, oops....a terrorist act or unfortunate accident directed just towards the unfortunate liberals [and middle of the roaders]. The remaining members of Congress (a few Repubs that support the Boss) can then legally go forward without threat of filibuster or opposition.

      I hope I am totally wrong and am just having super-paranoid thoughts, as my husband accuses. In the meantime, I am investigating Canada.

  • Why will more legislation be necessary if some disaster overtakes this country? The President can fight any enemy until new congressmen arrive and declare war. Cleanup after a natural disaster is immediate and does not require extra legislation. Bad law, I bet the constitutional writers thought of and rejected this idea.

  • Nothing to get really exited about. Governments around the world emphasize their "importance"
    in the same way. Take it as another joke!