House Backs Elections After Catastrophe- (tin hat theories?)

Just wondering your thoughts on this article. The paranoid in me wonders about election rigging in the context of having to vote in a hundred or more members of the house. Notice that they don't want appointments by state legislators (hard to rig those!). Also, for anyone who keeps up with 9/11 theories, that plane that was shot down...oops, I mean crashed...in Pennsylvania was allegedly headed for the capital (although there was never any proof offered). The cynic in me says that since incumbents have the advantage in elections....the administration might have been happy for congressional casualties (as long as they were dems). Just like I'm sure they didn't have any concerns for the democratic senators who were attacked by fine weapons grade Anthrax.

Excerpt from article is below
.......................................

:tinfoilhat:

House Backs Elections After Catastrophe
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 4, 2005

More than 1,000 days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the House made another attempt Thursday to prepare for a catastrophic event that kills more than 100 of its members.

The House, with a 329-68 vote, said states must hold special elections within 49 days of an announcement by the speaker that there are more than 100 vacancies in the 435-member body. A similar bill died in the Senate last year after House passage.

There was broad agreement over the need to take steps so Congress could recover and continue functioning after a cataclysmic attack, although some lawmakers said the special election approach would cause a legislative vacuum of weeks during a national crisis.

Last year, the House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed the House, like the Senate, to temporarily fill vacancies through appointments during exceptional circumstances.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., sponsor of the special elections legislation and chief foe of the constitutional amendment, argued that the House must preserve its unique tradition of having every legislator chosen by direct election.

``Without an elected House the entire federal government could be run and laws could be written without a single branch directly representing the popular will,'' he said.

Last April, the House approved a nearly identical bill to require special elections within 45 days of the loss of 100 members, but the Senate did not act on it.

This year, the time period was extended to 49 days in a concession to critics who said 45 days was inadequate for staging fair elections. This year's bill also allows states to hold primaries and makes sure military ballots from overseas are counted.

I hate to reply to myself, but this sentence caught my eye.

"Without an elected House the entire federal government could be run and laws could be written without a single branch directly representing the popular will,''

It seems to me that many laws are being passed that don't represent popular will (they represent Corporate will).


Just a thought.

if it would look or feel much different under those circumstances?

and a replacement at the same time? The replacement stays in their present job in their respective state until and if a catastrophe happens? If something takes out 100 members at once, then the replacement is called to serve. No delays, no special elections, no problem.

And while I'm suspicious from time to time, having the Congress zapped with no easy way to replace them would be a bad thing.

On the other hand, if Congress is zapped that badly, elections may be a problem to get set up--even with that whopping extra 4 days.

If and only if I get to pick the 100 or so that get vaporized.

Your right, if that many members of Congress were to be killed, that would mean that the Capitol was in shambles, or multiple states were. If the states are hit, there would not a representative vote for the simple fact the people in those states would be sick and injured also. IF the Capitol is hit, I am trying to think of the mind set. I imagine it would be similar to that after 9/11. Would we, as a nation, have been willing to vote by October of that year?

but suspended them), would we want to see the results?

are needed to do business in case of an emergency - as in http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0109-12.htm | this> bill - it's unconstitutional.

But hey, we've already thrown out the first, fourth, and fifth amendments - why not a few more pesky clauses?

how nice that they are looking ahead like this!! They can't guarantee an honest election but they will make sure the fraudulent ones are speedy!

March 4, 2005

The House on Thursday moved to authorize quick elections to reconstitute the chamber in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack in which more than 100 representatives are killed.

For the second straight year, the House approved the Continuity in Representation Act, which would require states to hold special elections no later than 49 days after the speaker of the House calls for them during "extraordinary circumstances," when mass casualties among House members would cripple Congress. But it was left unclear what might happen if the speaker was killed as well.

Now the House, which approved the bill 329-68, has to hope the Senate feels the same sense of urgency to pass the legislation; it took no action on a similar measure last year. Mass casualties in the Senate are not addressed in the measure because governors typically appoint replacement senators and set election dates.

But in the case of vacancies in the House, only 10 states have guidelines for when elections should be held to fill empty seats, and sometimes it has taken months to hold such elections.

In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an independent group, the Continuity of Government Commission, made various recommendations to Congress on how it could keep running during a crisis, among them approving a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue of House vacancies.

"Elections are particularly important during a crisis," said Rep. David Dreier (news, bio, voting record) (R-Calif.). "Otherwise this threatens the very strength of our democratic nation."

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&u=/chitribts/20050304/ts_chicagotrib/houseapprovesspeedyelectionincaseofdisaster&printer=1

They most likely have a bunker built somewhere for repuke congress critters. They will get the briefing by the white house just hours before the attack and all will disappear into the bunker. As the Dem leaders and us wonder where the hell they went, ..............................................................................................................

:evilgrin:

This might--might--be a prudent move if the BFEE had never existed. When you consider LIHOP or MIHOP, the House of Representatives could very well have just signed its own death warrant.