What If a Fourth of the House Died?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

In the event of a nuclear or bioterrorism attack this severe, the lack of a Congress will be the least of our problems.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>What If a Fourth of the House Died? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Throw a party?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The RANDy Corporation:
Throw a party?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

t depends on who is included in that group. It in includes Bonior, Dellums, McKinney, Lee and Maxine Waters, I might be very hapy indeed.

[ThomasMore]

Now that that is out of the way: Democrat or Republican, if Congress can't do business for 6 or 8 months, what do you think would happen? People like us would do what needs to be done.

Some on the left would pull themselves together and do what needs to be done, too, since Papa Government isn't there to bail them out for a change. Maybe some of them will learn what this nation has historically been about.

The rest on the left will fall into two groups: (1) the perpetual demagogues, who suddenly find themselves useless and without federal sponsorship (and a public that has lost patience for the constant guilt trip). They will be more irrelevant and disenfranchised than ever. (2) Those who NEED the Daddy State will pull the covers over their collective heads until their supplies of Prozac wear out.

[oracle]

What If a Fourth of the House Died? (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000086041oct29.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Doped%2D manual)
The Constitution must be able to provide for the dangers that face the nation.

By JONATHAN TURLEY, Jonathan Turley is a professor at George Washington University Law School


In what may be the ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living, a constitutional amendment has been proposed to address what was once the unthinkable: the death or incapacitation of one-fourth or more of the members of the House of Representatives. This amendment, introduced by Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), can't be easily dismissed.

The Constitution does in fact have a blind spot that makes the system vulnerable to terrorism. In a nuclear or biochemical attack, it is possible that a majority of House members might be living but incapacitated. In such a crisis, the remaining members could be constitutionally disabled.

The Constitution specifies that a quorum--a majority of the elected members--is needed to conduct business in either the House or the Senate. Even with members who are killed, the average special election for a House seat takes months. This would leave large areas of the country unrepresented in deliberations that could determine the future of the country, including the relative sacrifices to be borne by particular areas. In the Senate, this problem is avoided because the 17th Amendment allows governors to fill vacancies. The House has no such provision. Baird's amendment would allow a governor to appoint House members for 90-day terms to fill vacancies until special elections are held.

The Constitution has been amended only 27 times in more than 200 years. When one considers that the first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights, there have been relatively few modifications of a document that is not only the symbol but the foundation for our country. The framers wanted amendments to be difficult, requiring not just the support of two-thirds of both houses of Congress but also three-fourths of the state legislatures.

There have been some misguided statements made in support of the Baird amendment, despite its merits.

..


Click here to read more (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000086041oct29.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Doped%2D manual)