Fox News is running a story about Congress' desire to address the issue of a terrorist attack decimating their numbers. "Members said this week that despite the time that has lapsed since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, they still feel an urgency to write into place new rules to ensure continuity — even if that means a constitutional amendment to do so." But what sort of amendment are they talking about?
In a nutshell, they're talking about an amendment that would further dismantle the Constitutional Republic crafted by our Founding Fathers.
Right now, state governors can appoint replacements for senators who die in office. You may recall (if you have studied history outside of a government school) that the Constitution originally assigned state legislatures the duty of electing federal Senators, with the people directly electing federal Representatives. Our Constitutional Republic was dealt a blow with the 17th Amendment, essentially because it put the U.S. one step closer to a pure democracy, which is ultimately anathema to the rule of law.
Federal Representatives, however, must be elected by the people (according to Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution), which means that special elections--which typically take a couple of months--must be held to replace them if they die in office. Tom Eisenhouer, spokesman for the House Rules Committee, says he "[doesn't] know of any way of replacing members without changing the Constitution," which suggests that he hasn't actually read the Constitution (so what's he doing in that position?!). Building upon Mr. Eisenhouer's ignorance, many members of Congress claim that they need to be able to bypass the Constitution whenever they are able to declare that a "catastrophic event" has taken place. And they're planning to use 9/11 angst to push the amendment through.
James Langevin (D-RI) says, "We must not allow our government body to be interfered with, no matter how serious the attack that might occur. ... We cannot let the business of the people be interrupted." That sort of statement hinges on the idea that we would be in trouble if Congress were unable to function for a couple of months, and that "the business of the people" is really what Congress is all about. It also presumes that the Congress is more important than the Constitution.
"The business of the people" centers around the homes, churches, and businesses of the people, not the halls of the Capitol. You may rest assured that, at this point, our Congress fears being forced back into its Constitutional boundaries far more than it fears any terrorist attack, so a crippled Congress would in reality be great news for America. They couldn't spend our money! Perhaps those who were able to convene would be more likely to be concerned with their duty to protect and defend (and obey) the Constitution instead of coming up with even more creative (read: unconstitutional) ways to redistribute our money to their respective constituencies, subvert the rule of law, and continue to permit the usurpation of power by the federal Legislature. I certainly do not wish calamity on our beloved Congress, but the fact remains that nothing straightens out priorities like a good near-death experience.
While the Congress might legitimately consider ways of meeting outside of the Capitol (such as alternate locations, secure videoconferencing, etc.), they have no business even suggesting an alteration to the Constitution that would alter the foundational operation of our Republic. I urge you to contact your federal congressmen and let them know how you feel about this.
Posted by jon at June 7, 2003 08:15 AM