Stardate 20011011.0928 (On Screen): The Constitution of the US is a remarkable document. But it isn't perfect, and those who wrote it knew that it might be necessary to make changes to it. As a result, they created an amendment process, designed so that amendments were possible but difficult.
Many, many amendments have been proposed over the years, and most of those have been stupid or misguided. But the barriers for amendment are sufficiently high so that there's only really been one amendment which did pass and shouldn't have (Prohibition, later repealed). In recent years, we've seen proposals for amendments to ban school busing, or to prevent people from burning the flag, or numerous other things of that kind. That is not what the amendment process should be about.
So it's refreshing to read about a proposed amendment that actually makes sense. In wake of the WTC and Pentagon attacks, Representative Brian Baird of Washington has proposed an amendment that would permit the governors of the states to appoint replacement Representatives in case one quarter or more of the members of the House die or are incapacitated in an attack. It answers a question which wasn't ever considered before: What if Washington DC got nuked? Certainly all of us hope we never find out, but it is a possibility that can't be ignored, and if it happens there must be a way for the government to go on. The Constitution currently permits governors to appoint replacements for Senators, and there's a large body of law and constitutional principles for rapidly replacing the President, but the only way now to replace Representatives is to hold emergency elections, which in time of war would be both too difficult and too slow. This amendment corrects that; I think it is an excellent proposal and I expect it to pass and be ratified easily. (discuss)
