Ron Paul - Congress Cannot Be Appointed

House Web Site ^ | 1-26-2004 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[jmc813]

In the months following the September 11th terrorist attacks, questions arose about whether Congress could continue to function if many of its members were killed or injured in a future terrorist attack. These concerns resulted in the creation of a commission that advocated a first in American history, namely the appointment of individuals to the U.S. House. A constitutional amendment has been proposed that would provide the method for such appointments following a catastrophe that killed or disabled a majority of the people in Congress.

I strongly oppose this constitutional amendment, because I believe an appointed Congress would become an unaccountable, tyrannical Congress. Over the past year I met with top scholars, attorneys, and colleagues who reject the idea of an appointed House of Representatives. Fortunately, we had success in turning many members of Congress against the proposal through a series of public lectures, meetings, and published articles. Legislation I cosponsored, recently passed by the House Judiciary committee, will enable congressional districts around the nation to hold emergency elections without resorting to political appointments. The bill has the support of congressional leadership, and should reach the House floor in coming months.

At its heart, the proposed constitutional amendment is fundamentally at odds with the right of the people always to elect their members of the House of Representatives. The term “appointed representative” clearly is an oxymoron. The House, designed as the most directly representative branch of government, must be elected to have any legitimacy. Even “temporary” appointees would be unacceptable, because the laws passed would be permanent.

Those advocating an appointed Congress argue that a U.S. House consisting of only a handful of surviving members would not be seen as legitimate by the public. In fact the opposite is true: the legitimacy of appointed “representatives” would be strongly questioned, especially by those who disagreed with their actions. Appointees would be viewed suspiciously as recipients of political patronage, regardless of the system put in place to appoint them. Appointees would not be seen as legitimate because they would in fact not be legitimate. Without exception, every member of the House of Representatives has been elected for over two hundred years. We can amend the Constitution, but we cannot force the public to accept the loss of its voting franchise.

One very important point should be emphasized: the Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I section 2 instructs state governors to hold special elections to fill congressional vacancies, while Article I section 4 authorizes Congress to designate the “time, place, and manner” of such special elections if states should fail to act quickly following a national emergency. The legislation passed by the Judiciary committee simply exercises the existing congressional power by requiring states to hold special elections within 21 days after the House Speaker or acting Speaker declares that a majority of House members are incapacitated.

To quote Charles Rice, a distinguished Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School, “When it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend the Constitution.” We must not allow the fear of terrorism to compel us to abandon our existing institutions-- including an elected House. The Constitution is our best ally in times of relative crisis, and it is precisely during such times we should adhere to it rather than rush to amend it.

[arete]

Man, do I ever wish that Ron Paul was running for President. Probably do a write in for him anyway.

Richard W.

[RiflemanSharpe]

I really like Ron Paul. I am just sorry I live a few miles away for bing in his district. I would be proud to have him represent me.

[skip2myloo]

Draft Ron paul for President

[jimkress]

With this President, Supreme Court, and this Congress the Constitution is irrelevant, except when it aids them in their endless quest to impose their will on us common folk.

Quoting the Constitution at these people is like talking to a teenager about responsibility - it goes in one ear and out the other with no impact on their behavior.

[tacticalogic]

I don't think that Ron Paul is noticing the catastrophy, and anarchy of such an event.

I have a little more faith in the residents of flyover country.

[sam_paine]

I don't think that Ron Paul is noticing the catastrophy, and anarchy of such an event.

Hmmm. Well, what about temporarily returning legislative authority back to the respective state leges while Congress is re-elected? How hard is that? The executive branch already has survivability, who the hell needs Congress in an emergency????

[GreenLanternCorps]

Correct, I have no problem with an appointed, temporary House as long as the appointments are restricted to the time needed to organize an emergency election. A 60-90 day term ought to do it. 21 days is not enough time if our Legislative Branch was decapitated with 50-85% casualties.

[Johnny_Cipher]

(W)ho the hell needs Congress in an emergency????

There - I've fixed your post :)

[Budge]

Correct, I have no problem with an appointed, temporary House as long as the appointments are restricted to the time needed to organize an emergency election.

You have got to be kidding!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Who would miss them in a time of tranquility?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The time needed to organize an emergency election would be about as long as the lives of the new appointees.

Appointed congresscritters for life. What a concept.

[o_zarkman44]

I think FEMA already has contingency for a shadow government in place for just such a catastrophy.
How quickly elections could be held would depend on the scope of the catastrophy. If only DC was involved, the rest of the nation would still be functionally and governmentally intact to co-ordinate an election process.
there is no need to give appointments to political offices any more ground than now is given. Irrevokable sunset clauses in appointed organization would be the only way such a concept would be constitutional.

Now if the scope of the catastrophy is more national, it will be every one for themselves. Anarchy will be the rule.
The smart family will have the means to survive and protect what the unprepared would kill for. The 2nd Amendment will be the rule of law.

[ConservativeDude]

you might be interested to know that in texas, dr paul represents a district which is marginally republican at best. in a ranking of the strongest gop down to the weakest (ie, from the districts where a d simply can't win to where one might be competitive), paul's district is dead last. it's still gop, but only marginally.

yet, ever since he was elected for his second tenure in 1996, his re-election numbers have gone up and up and up. this cycle, he is the only member of congress in texas to have no primary and no general election opponent. interestingly, the libertarians have filed in every district except his. so he, unlike every other member of congress in texas, has absolutely no opponent.

his point in all of this is that individual liberty and the constitution is more popular than we realize.

[_Jim]

questions arose about whether Congress could continue to function if many of its members were killed or injured in a future terrorist attack. These concerns resulted in the creation of a commission that advocated a first in American history, namely the appointment of individuals to the U.S. House.

I suspect, but I don't know, that the state legislatures (or the governor) of each state would do the 'appointing' ...

Ron doesn't state this, because, after all, he needs to 'get a rise' out of his audience (those to whom he is targeting this article).

If somebody has more info - by all means post it!

[Budge]

The time needed to organize an emergency election would be about as long as the lives of the new appointees.

Exactly! Like federal judges who rule by fiat.

[_Jim]

   I think FEMA already has contingency for a shadow government

We went through this 'drill' for Y2K. Were you around these parts then?

[Maeve]

I don't think that Ron Paul is noticing the catastrophy, and anarchy of such an event.

Wrong. Anarchy would not ensue. You underestimate the people who are the nation.

[sam_paine]

(W)ho the hell needs Congress in an emergency????

Exactly. Thank you for the corrections!