ELECT, NEVER APPOINT U.S. REPRESENTATIVES

The Liberty Committee ^ | February 10, 2004 | Liberty Committee

[Dixielander]

Elect, Never Appoint U.S. Representatives

On June 20, 2003, we issued the following alert: "The clock is ticking. A well-orchestrated, well-financed campaign to quickly amend the Constitution is underway. A proposed constitutional amendment would take away your right to vote for your U.S. representative. We can't and won't stand by and let our republic be gutted by this amendment."

This alert was in response to the "Continuity of Government" (COG) report made public on June 4, 2003. The report calls for a constitutional amendment that would allow for the appointment of members of the U.S. House of Representatives under vaguely defined circumstances. During the June 4th press conference, COG touted their proposed constitutional amendment and predicted there would be no opposition to it. In addition, they predicted Congress would pass their proposed amendment and be ratified by the states within 14 to 18 months. Their predictions were wrong, as is their proposed constitutional amendment.

On July 23, 2003, The Liberty Committee presented opposition at a briefing for congressional staff members. Congressmen Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Vic Snyder (D-Arkansas) spoke persuasively against the COG proposal, as did Charles E. Rice, professor emeritus of Notre Dame Law School.

On July 24, 2003, Representatives Sensenbrenner, Dreier, Miller, Cole, Chabot, and Paul introduced the Continuity in Representation Act of 2003 (H.R. 2844) as the alternative to the COG proposal. H.R. 2844 is the practical and proper solution because it requires states to promptly hold special elections of U.S. House members; not special appointments.

On January 21, 2004, the House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 2844. The U.S. House will likely vote on the legislation by February 20, 2004.

Take Action: Urge your U.S. representative to vote "yes" on H.R. 2844. Click here.

Background

House Committee on the Judiciary Press Release January 21, 2004

Congressman David Dreier September 9, 2003

Congressman James Sensenbrenner July 24, 2003

Professor Charles E. Rice June 17, 2003

Phyllis Schlafly June 16, 2003

Congressman Ron Paul June 4, 2003

Congressman Vic Snyder November 19, 2001 (pdf)

[Dixielander]

Do you want your U.S. Representatives to be appointed instead of elected? I should hope not! Please contact your representative and insist that they vote for H.R. 2844. The US. House will probably vote on this bill by February 20.

[Maeve]

BUMP

[nickcarraway]

No.

[Numbers Guy]

What is their proposal for the "Debt of Honor" [Clancy book] scenario where a suicide bomber wipes out most of Congress? Is it preferable to have all power ceded to the President with no check on him (or her)?

I think having an emergency provision in place, allowing members of Congress to designate successors to serve until elections can be held, is a good idea. Now the language may need to be tightened up and more checks built into it, but that's different from opposing the idea in any form.

[Maeve]

BUMP

[veracious]

Under no circumstance can we allow our representatives in the Federal Government to be appointed. This bill claims that in an emergency we must change our form of government! Making sure someone is sitting in a representatives chair regardless of how he got there is _alien_ to our form of government. The kinds of changes being made to protect our government in emergency are destroying the government they pretend to protect. We either keep our Republic and deal with things as they come, or surrender.

As for me and my family, we will defend the US Constitution.

[deport]

What is the option should the planes that hit the WTC have hit the House of Representatives and wiped out most of them if not all? How should they be replaced in a emergency situation such as the senario above? Just let the government flounder at the direction of whomever until each state can call elections, hold them, etc?

[inquest]

What is their proposal for the "Debt of Honor" [Clancy book] scenario where a suicide bomber wipes out most of Congress? Is it preferable to have all power ceded to the President with no check on him (or her)?

What exactly do you mean by "all power"? The President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, which gives him plenty of power as it is. And it was never intended for Congress to be in session for more than a small proportion of the year anyway. It's a given that the President may take all necessary emergency measures to keep the nation defended. In the meantime, there can be new elections for Congress, and when that happens, Congress can resume its constitutional role. These COG people are inventing a crisis.

[Schattie]

I'm a conservative who supports the repeal of both the 16th and 17 amendments. The 17th amendment involves the selection of senators by state legislatures (which it puts an end to).

If they're gonna do anything repeal the 17th amendment and give states back their power.

[azcap]

I was going to read the COG report but I can't right now as their is a black helicopter hovering outside my window and I don't want them to see what I am reading.

[inquest]

"Flounder"? The government can function on its own without Congress keeping an eye on it 24/7.

[Wheee The People]

What is the option should the planes that hit the WTC have hit the House of Representatives and wiped out most of them if not all? How should they be replaced in a emergency situation such as the senario above? Just let the government flounder at the direction of whomever until each state can call elections, hold them, etc?

Jeepers! Don't ask any good questions...just say no. Don't think...just say NO!

If some terrorist drives a truck with an A-bomb into the Capital, while the full House is in session, would someone please explain how government goes on?

[sociotard]

What is the option should the planes that hit the WTC have hit the House of Representatives and wiped out most of them if not all? How should they be replaced in a emergency situation such as the senario above? Just let the government flounder at the direction of whomever until each state can call elections, hold them, etc?

We could have 'runners-up' be named successor. Alternatively, they could be drawn from state legislatures, choosing the representative with the most seniority. That would be a little trickier, as different states use very different house systems. I'd go with the runner up.

[Pylot]

Who among us believes we (citizens) are represented in either house??

Who gives a hoot if there is no representative there for a few months or even a year. Think it would make a difference? Well less spending might happen.

So support elected only, never appointed.

[inquest]

I'd go with the runner up.

You mean the guy who lost? The one that the people decisively rejected as their representative?

[TKDietz]

I don't know any of the details about the COG proposals and it may be that these guys are proposing some really bad stuff. I had been under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that all of this was something people were trying to put together to ensure that we still have a government in the event that all or part of our government was wiped out by a natural disaster or weapons of mass destruction. Again, I don't know anything about any proposed amendments, but it does seem to me that some type of plan for a temporary intermediate government in case our other one is totally annihilated doesn't sound like such a bad idea. It's certainly worth looking into. This article, however, doesn't even attempt to explain the reasons why it opposes the proposed amendments. Instead it leaves all of the details out and tries to make it look like there is some sort of movement to do away with elected representatives and replace them all with appointed ones. This a very dishonest way to fight against something you disagree with. I don't know anything about the Liberty Committee, but I'm sure going to take anything a hear from them with a healthy dose of skepticism from now on.

By the way, just as an interesting side note, when our country was originally founded the Constitution provided that Senators be appointed by the state legislators. It was not till the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 that the Senate became a body of elected officials.

[sociotard]

Jeepers! Don't ask any good questions...just say no. Don't think...just say NO!
If some terrorist drives a truck with an A-bomb into the Capital, while the full House is in session, would someone please explain how government goes on?
I just realized how little of my american government class I remember. I do know that the constitution has a provision whereby the federal government can be disolved by a vote by (I think) a convention of governors. If the High levels were that badly damaged, I believe such a convention would be held to decide the most expedient means of putting everything back together.

[marron]

I agree with you. In a national emergency, a care-taker congress could be appointed by the state legislatures, candidates could be proposed by the governor and confirmed by the state assembly. That wouldn't have to take long under such emergency conditions.

Under the original constitution, the Senate was elected by the legislatures anyway, that would just be taking us back to original intent, at least on the senate side.

[inquest]

I do know that the constitution has a provision whereby the federal government can be disolved by a vote by (I think) a convention of governors.

No such provision exists.

[sociotard]

You mean the guy who lost? The one that the people decisively rejected as their representative?
Point taken. I just remembered that, in the early days, one of the mechanics for naming vice president that was proposed was giving the spot to the runner up. It was decided against because of the power struggles that would clearly result (picture Gore serving under Bush. yucky.)
If the runner up was taken, it would be, while not the choice of the mayority of the people, at least be based on the opinion of some of the people, instead of some bureaucrat.