Baird Amendment Goes Down in Flames

[NewJerseyDem]

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/49_132/news/5762-1.html (subscripiton required)

The House voted resoundingly against a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would have allowed the temporary appointment of House Members, blocking an effort to ensure the chamber could continue to act as a check on the executive branch should a large number of lawmakers be killed or incapacitated in a catastrophe.

The vote itself, 353-63, was essentially a foregone conclusion. Four Republicans and 59 Democrats voted in favor of the amendment. No one, not even the resolution’s sponsor, Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), expected anywhere near the two-thirds majority required to pass the measure. Rather, Wednesday’s deliberation, as has become the norm on the issue of Congressional continuity, was largely about process.

The debate was subject to a closed rule, preventing Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and two Democrats from offering their amendment proposals as substitutes. Baird and a handful of his Democratic colleagues said the closed rule contradicted Rules Chairman David Dreier’s (R-Calif.) assertions that the GOP leadership has worked “in a strong bipartisan way” to ensure an open deliberative process. So instead of spending the allotted 90 minutes discussing the measure’s merits, much of that time was instead dedicated to discussion of whether the duration and nature of the deliberation was appropriate to an issue so fundamental to the institution.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said the measure “deserves to have a debate. This rule provides for that debate, 90 minutes.”

[2Design]

1. Are the dems brain dead

Why would 59 of them vote for this.....this could end our government check and balance system all together....it is out of balance now...

[NewJerseyDem]

2. How?

All the amendment does is say that if a majority of the members of the House die, then the governor of their state would be able to appoint a temporary congressman to replace the deceased one. That replacement would come from a list that would be supplied by the congressman to be used in case he died. It would only occur in a massive catastrophe and would not change the ideological balance of congress. Also, those appointments would only be temporary until a special election could be held. I don't see why some people think that a reasonable amendment to secure the continuity of congress is so dangerous.

[0rganism]

3. I thought s/he was implying "only 59"

The ammendment itself is emminently reasonable. Given events of the last three years, I have some difficulty seeing why Democrats are participating in shutting it down.

[jmowreader]

4. Read Clancy's "Balance of Power"

to see why this sort of thing is necessary.

In that wonderful little tome </sarcasm> Jack Ryan was charged with completely rebuilding the government. He filled the Supreme Court with RW fundies, then stood back as the governors (as in real life, the Congress was aligned different than the statehouses) built a congress that looked far different from the one the Japanese pilot killed in "Debt of Honor."

If the members of Congress are responsible for appointing their own replacements, you know the balance on the floor isn't going to be affected--Ted Kennedy isn't going to put a DeLay clone on his shortlist.

It's not a great amendment, but it's not bad either. At least it's a start.

[NewJerseyDem]

5. I agree

It isn't perfect, but it is a start. But, unfortunately republican and democrats in the House are incapable of working together so I doubt that anything will really get done. And the Senate won't do anything because the proposals really just deal with the House so the Senate wants to just let them work out a solution before the Senate does anything.

I like the idea that a congressman run with a "running mate" who would have no real power. But, if the the congressman died, was expelled or had to resign, that running mate would serve until a replacement could be selected in a special election. However, the temporary replacement couldn't run in the special election. That way the district would always have representation. South Dakota has spent almost 5 months without a single member of the House because Janklow had to resign. That is unfair to the state or in othe cases the district.

[2Design]

6. sorry I don't trust fear produced legislature

Right after 9/11, they rushed and gave Bush an enormous amount of power. And he abuse what he could and used executive powers to get the rest. They gave him too much power for declaring war. They were duped.

This just feels/intuition not good. Sorry, that may not have any logic behind it.

Right now the majority of the governors are republican.
I feel we will lose something here by turning over power.

And I do not trust our governing leaders in the least bit. I would not be surprized if they made this happen.

the government was set up with checks and balances and the more people manuever and manipulate those checks and balances the more we seem to be going toward a facist dictatorship.

so my gut tells me this is no for our good.

[Tellurian]

7. Yup, Yup, Yup and my final go to bed, Yup!

thanks for the reminder..

Do A Print out of:

"NEVER TRUST A REPUBLICAN"

and tack it to your refrigerator door..