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)

[TKDietz]

These are interesting points the two of you bring up. I didn't even know there was a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment. I haven't really thought about it but I am for doing things that return power to the states. I see the power grab the feds have made over time as a real problem.

[Celtman]

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?

      Quite well, thank you.  The executive and judicial branches would still be in place, and defense is an executive functions.  Replacing judges?  That's not working too well with congress in session.  As inquest pointed out, we don't need a congress in continuous session. 
      Somewhere along the line, it bacame accepted that the only job of a legislature is to pass new laws.  We have quite enough on the books already. 

[Celtman]

My understanding is that the members of the Senate are representatives of the states ...

      That was the original idea.

[fatima]

Bump for read.

[graycamel]

The founders were usually but not always right.

[graycamel]

My understanding is that the members of the Senate are representatives of the states, not the people, and that the members of the House of Representatives represent the people.

It was originally a compromise between "small" New Jersey and "large" Virginia, which today are reversed in population.

Its possible that we opened a Pandora's Box when we started the direct election of Senators. Just look at the character (or lack of it) of the senators for whom the people have voted. The composition of the U.S. Senate today is frightening.

This is a non sequitir argument. The character would have been just as atrocious if the legislators or governors had elected them.

[templar]

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

Ummm ... If it passes as a constitutional ammendment it will be the US Constitution.

[Schattie]

Indeed.

[Dixielander]

Touche! You're right!

[graycamel]

Thanx

[iconoclast]

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)?

Of course this is the kind of scenario that this legislation is aimed at. This sounds like a Chicken Little reaction to me.

[Prodigal Son]

Do you want your U.S. Representatives to be appointed instead of elected?

The way the Constitution lays it out is fine with me. I would however, like to see the 17th repealed and the Senators selected by State legislature. America was never meant to be a democracy.