Congress passes `doomsday' plan

Congress passes `doomsday' plan
By Noelle Straub
Sunday, January 9, 2005
Boston Herald

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.

similar legislation was used during the usa's
'civil war' when a number of states were absent from congress

[pskovinsky]

Hmm, in a specific situation that could be usefull, although it seems like in that state of emergency it'd be martial law time anyway.

The downside is in theory that could give very few people a LOT of power.

I smell a lot of new conspiracy theories incoming, but i've pretty much sworn off that here now :P

I'm rather courious as to whether that law ever sees action.

It's pretty scary, but I suppose it's a good thing they're trying to plan ahead for a change, instead of waiting for an emergency, then going "oh shit, what do we do now"?

[watero]

I am okay with this. Imagine if the doomsday happened and we did not have a plan. It would be a cluster of fuck, God willing nothing of that magnitude will happen to our country. At least they are thinking.

[rick]

" Oh shit, What do we do now?"

Like when bush sat there when the World Trade center got hit.

[Hippie3]

the next 4 years are gonna be a bit rough on ya, friend.

[jbaggs1]

Since this bill does not change the order of succession of power for the U.S.A. as defined in the constitution and only effects the Congress I would think that this is constitutionally sound but perhaps not morally correct. Just think a little... If the congress wanted to surrender only a majority of the around the congressmen around capital so those that were in thier home states whenever congress declared that there was a crisis it would not matter. The way this administration makes up it's own crises congress should fear thier own extremism. Just what and who defines "catastophic cicumstances"? Well Congress of course but what is a "similar calamity" anyway. These Men and women have passed another meaningless bill to insure that those that have the power, if your close to the capital, stay in power. These are the same people that brought you the port secority that keeps nuclear weapons away from our ports. Oh yea! There are no inspections because they only control the money not how it's spent. The people of the U.S. should trust these people that never limit the amount of foreign nationals the enter the country illegally. The same people that voted to give thier authority to make war to another branch of the government. Oh' I forgot, that was the entire Congress that made that decision. I wonder what happens when only a few get power.
A doomsday provision? If there is a crisis that big the power would belong to those that are strong enough to keep it. Not a group of people that pretend to be incharge just so they can say that "we rule". It really won't matter if the Pesident sits reading to a class of small children because with a catratrophy of that magnatude he would realize that it really wouldn't matter what the congress does in that situation. He would still be in charge of whats left and no matter who was President, he or she would not let those idiots make any decisions until well after whatever crisis had passed. Again the congress passed a law that means abolutely nothing.

[sinthetic]

sometimes I welcome a doomsday... complete collapse of government and civilization.. where people work to live and make things better instead of working for money.

not to mention i wouldn't have to worry about my horrid credit anymore

[Hippie3]

i doubt doomsday would be much fun.
i don't think most of us really appreciate
just how dependant we are on civilized society.
hell we get upset when our internet goes down.
what if the lights go out
and stay out ?
it would be harsh

[destroy_erase_improve]

Originally Posted by sinthetic

sometimes I welcome a doomsday... complete collapse of government and civilization.. where people work to live and make things better instead of working for money.

theres no guarantee that people would work to make things better, they would work for survival. not necessarily your survival. i know quite a few people who would happily off you for your supplies instead of work with you to try to make strides.

my thoughts are more like, anyone who says they cant wait for armegeddon, or the apocolypse is seriously mentally ill, or totally full of crap. more than half the people on this planet wouldnt even be able to survive on their own if they have to scavage or hunt. we have it very nice and cushy right now, no matter what the political downfalls may be at the time, the way we are right now is 100 times better than a post apocolyptic lifestyle.

btw no credit card debt sounds good to me too