‘DOOMSDAY’ LEGISLATION
Handful of Congressmen Could Rule America in Event of Catastrophe
By Greg Szymanski
No longer do Capitol Hill legislators need a quorum to do the people’s
business. Now under a piece of hotly contested legislation passed
without media attention on Jan. 5, only a few members of Congress are
needed to do official business in the event of a catastrophe instead
of the usual 218.
Critics claim H. Res. 5 paves the way for tyranny, allowing “only a
few to decide for so many.”
The provision states: “If the House should be without a quorum due to
catastrophic circumstances, then . . . until there appear in the House
a sufficient number of representatives to constitute a quorum among
the whole number of the House, a quorum in the House shall be
determined based upon the provisional number of the House; and . . .
the provisional number of the House, as of the close of the call of
the House . . . shall be the number of representatives responding to
that call of the House.”
Supporters claim the bill, passed “under the cover of congressional
darkness,” is intended to allow the government to “continue operating”
in the event of a catastrophic emergency or terrorist attack. However,
constitutional experts say the law is blatantly unconstitutional and
ripe for challenge.
Normally, 218 lawmakers out of the 435 members are needed to declare
war, pass laws and validly conduct the people’s business. But under
the new rule a majority is no longer needed when circumstances arise,
including natural disaster, attack, contagion or terrorist attacks
rendering representatives incapable of attending House proceedings.
“It’s another measure brought up by lawmakers that shows their callous
disregard for democracy,” said one California attorney who preferred
to remain anonymous.
GOP House leaders pushed the controversial “doomsday legislation”
through for passage as a part of a hefty and voluminous rules package.
It drew little attention and was probably not even discovered by many
who voted on it since the rules package centered on recent ethics
violations.
“I think the new rule is disgusting, terrible and unconstitutional,”
said Norm Ornstein, of an independent, bipartisan panel called the
Continuity of Government Commission which is studying the issue. “The
way it was passed was deceitful and the intent behind the legislation
was very foolish.”
Rep. Brian Baird, (D-Wash.) agrees, arguing that the rule change
violates the Constitution, which specifically states: “a majority of
each Chamber shall constitute a quorum to do business.”
“Allowing for as few as 12 lawmakers to make vital decisions and to
possibly declare war on another nation is not what this country is all
about.”
.
|
