Thursday, June 3, 2004 |
22:39 - The Roland Emmerich Congress
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/02/congress.continuity.ap/index.html
|
(top) |
So it seems the Doomsday Contingency has been voted down.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Determined to remain elected representatives, House lawmakers on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed governors to name replacements if half the 435-member chamber died in a terrorist attack or other disaster.
Opponents said the House should never abandon direct election. Lawmakers supporting the amendment said that without the succession plan, the House would expose itself to a lengthy period of powerlessness should hundreds of members die at the same time.
"We feel very, very passionately about the need to ensure that no one ever serves in the 'people's house' without having first being elected," said Republican Rep. David Dreier of California, chairman of the House Rules Committee and critic of the amendment.
Rep. Brian Baird wrote the amendment to keep the House functioning with appointees until special elections could be held to restore depleted numbers. `Elections are sacred, but so too is representation," said Baird, D-Washington
His proposal was defeated 353-63, well short of the two-thirds needed to approve a constitutional amendment.
To me, there are genuine points on both sides, as tends to be the case in arguments over rather extraordinary circumstances. Yes, it's very important to hold to the principles of our governmental structure—Constitutional amendments have been ratified purely to tidy up trivialities in things like the succession of power during election season. But then again, it can hardly be denied that if a 747 were to plow through the House of Representatives, it would be no time to fret over whether the ten legislators left alive constituted a quorum for a vote on a war resolution, or whether they should be allowed to appoint some replacements to fill a few crushed and flaming seats.
The cynical or unhinged might say that the very proposal of the amendment is just so much more proof of a widespread shadowy conspiracy to stage terrorist attacks to freak the American people into voting dictatorial powers to the government. But perhaps the fact that it's been voted down now, and by a pretty bloody wide margin, might be construed as evidence that such a conspiracy has just been dealt a pretty serious blow—or maybe doesn't exist at all.
Like I said, there are real arguments both for and against the proposal. That it's been defeated doesn't horribly worry me, nor does it particularly relieve me. It does, however, further affirm to me that our government is capable of displaying remarkable restraint and integrity. Faced with an opportunity to quite justifiably vote themselves more (undemocratic) power, our Representatives overwhelmingly turned it down.
There's got to be some reassurance in that.
|
|