Is Congress scared of something?

[03_SHOOTER]

It would appear that Congress is contemplating relocating somewhere else, probably to a secure location on a large, heavily populated military installation so that they won't have to face the 2 million armed to the teeth members of the unorganized militia when everyone figures out exactly how badly they have, or are about to, screw us over!

HCON 1 RFS (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc111-1)
111th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. CON. RES. 1

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 6, 2009

Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of government.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That pursuant to clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, during the One Hundred Eleventh Congress the Speaker of
the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate or their respective designees, acting jointly after
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
may notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to assemble at a place
outside the District of Columbia if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives January 6, 2009.

Attest:

LORRAINE C. MILLER,

Clerk.

Sounds to me like they're already running scared!

[SlightlyCatholic]

I think they heard about your "armed mob" plan...do you have a plan B?

[03_SHOOTER]

I think they heard about your "armed mob" plan...do you have a plan B?

The Unorganized Militia is hardly a "mob", and the plan would depend on where they elect to meet. If they decide to do it in a manner reminiscent of the old "Chrome Dome" missions, where they simply ride around in aircraft 24/7/365, and only land on highly secure military bases, it might present something of a problem.

[SlightlyCatholic]

The Unorganized Militia is hardly a "mob",

I think you just cited an oxymoron...what militia are you speaking of?

[03_SHOOTER]

I think you just cited an oxymoron...what militia are you speaking of?

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html)

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

and

§ 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode32/usc_sec_32_00000313----000-.html)

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

That's the Militia.

[Javelin66]

I can't imagine what they would be afraid of, unless it was a terrorist attack on the National Capital Region. Of course, who would attack the same target twice in a ten year period, especially when a previous attempt was not completely successful?

[JohnP]

I can't imagine what they would be afraid of, unless it was a terrorist attack on the National Capital Region. Of course, who would attack the same target twice in a ten year period, especially when a previous attempt was not completely successful?

Sun Zsu states:

1. If you cut off the head of a serpent, the body will writhe around and die.

2. Let the enemy think you are weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak.

Never think that just because if failed once that they won't do it again. Remember the World Trade Center was attacked within 5 years of 9/11.

Just something to think about.

[HairyEyeball]

Just some random thoughts on the subject:

Congress has recently recorded the lowest 'approval rating' in history, based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of the populace disagrees with their decisions and policies.

Approximately one third of the population owns at least one firearm.

The District of Columbia is, essentially, a 'designated victim zone', with firearms prohibited in public - yet it has a murder rate among the highest in the world.

There is a mindset among many of the professional politicians, primarily those in the 'majority party', that they are 'better' than the 'common folk', and can dictate how the proletariat lives.

Any detailed comparison between current conditions and those detailed in the Declaration of Independence would reveal alarming parallels, including excesses by the duly constituted government against its citizenry, including excessive taxation and the illicit restriction of 'natural rights'.

Given the above, as well as other factors clearly (in some minds) separating 'them' from 'us', is it not also conceivable that as much as the decision may stem from fear of a 'terrorist attack', it may also be predicated on the fear of armed insurrection on the part of an increasingly oppressed and over-regulated citizenry?

[Javelin66]

I guess I should have used the sarcasm smiley again- a CT analyst would tell you that the failed attack makes a second attempt almost a given.

[Woody]

I guess I should have used the sarcasm smiley again- a CT analyst would tell you that the failed attack makes a second attempt almost a given.

Hopefully not by the same people though .That would just be embarrassing.
We were taught if we were alert and looked proffesional terrorists would go else where always a softer target out there .Guess Present lot dont care if they survive or not so that dosent hold true anymore.

[03_SHOOTER]

I can't imagine what they would be afraid of, unless it was a terrorist attack on the National Capital Region. Of course, who would attack the same target twice in a ten year period, especially when a previous attempt was not completely successful?

While true, believing that they would be doing so in order to prevent the government from being decapitated would require a belief that the government would have prior knowledge of the attack, have time to implement the mandated procedures for removing the Congress to another location prior to the attack (meaning hours, if not days of prior knowledge), have reason to believe that we are incapable of stopping the attack, and are willing to sacrifice D.C. to the attack, possibly without notifying the civil population.

Then there is the question of why the proposed legislation applies to only THIS Congress, and no other, which is specifically what drew my attention to the legislation. If it were written to apply to any Congress, then I would simply have chalked it up to them wanting to have Congress meet at Disney World, Aspen, or some other "vacation destination" in order to avoid scandals like "Travelgate".

I also note that the legislation also merely says "...outside the District of Columbia...", but it does not limit that destination to be within the United States, which brings up an entirely other set of questions as to where they would be going. Given the majority of Socialists that now infest our Government, from PEBO on down, perhaps they're planning on gathering in the home of their Socialist ideals, Mother Russia, where they can legislate with the advise and consent of their Communist ideological leaders like Putin.

[Javelin66]

While true, believing that they would be doing so in order to prevent the government from being decapitated would require a belief that the government would have prior knowledge of the attack, have time to implement the mandated procedures for removing the Congress to another location prior to the attack (meaning hours, if not days of prior knowledge), have reason to believe that we are incapable of stopping the attack, and are willing to sacrifice D.C. to the attack, possibly without notifying the civil population.


Not really. They may or may not be physically present in the city at all, much less actually in the building (I get the feeling that you watch a lot of CSpan; you know more than anyone that either chamber is rarely filled to capacity).

At any rate, this simply gives the authority to meet elsewhere, I would imagine that the procedures for notification, transportation, and support are laid out elsewhere. The easiest way to do this is to notify them not to report to work (probably won't be tough to enforce that) but instead move to one or more marshalling areas for onward movement to an undisclosed location. Kind of like what NOPD did during Katrina.

Several scenarios come to mind, including hostile (terrorist action), civil disturbance, sudden onset of Global Warming, and bad traffic.

[03_SHOOTER]

Not really. They may or may not be physically present in the city at all, much less actually in the building (I get the feeling that you watch a lot of CSpan; you know more than anyone that either chamber is rarely filled to capacity).

At any rate, this simply gives the authority to meet elsewhere, I would imagine that the procedures for notification, transportation, and support are laid out elsewhere. The easiest way to do this is to notify them not to report to work (probably won't be tough to enforce that) but instead move to one or more marshalling areas for onward movement to an undisclosed location. Kind of like what NOPD did during Katrina.

Several scenarios come to mind, including hostile (terrorist action), civil disturbance, sudden onset of Global Warming, and bad traffic.

Actually I watch very little CSPAN.:) As far as them not being present on the House or Senate Floor, while true except during debates or votes on major legislation, the vast majority of Senators and Representatives are present in D.C. for most of the year and are either in their offices, in Committee meetings, or elsewhere engaged in their official duties.

The Legislation, if passed and signed into law, requires that after their consultations, notify all 535 members of Congress to "bug out", which as I said, could take days, which precludes any sudden "emergency condition" being the reason for their leaving, unless they simply decline to inform the civilian population about the impending emergency, and instead claim that they're going to Disney World. Given the current financial situation, how do you suppose We The People would respond if Congress were to announced that they had gone to Disney World on our dime? If they're worried about riots in the street, that would cause it!

Also, given that there are already laws in effect that allow for the entire NCA, including Congress, to be removed from DC and to secure locations in case of an emergency (a holdover from the Cold War), and upon a declaration by POTUS, I find this legislation to be somewhat...curious, and suspect. Also, as I pointed out, if we are to accept your notion that it is an "emergency contingency", then why does it only apply to the 111th Congress, and not to every Congress?

[Javelin66]

So, you are contending that this is not simply a routine piece of legislation that allows this particular Congress to decide to meet in an alternate location in the event of some slow moving act of God or man, but rather a secret conspiracy for Congress to avoid a destructive act that they either planned or already have knowledge of?

Furthermore, while they were planning (or after they were notified of) this impending disaster-attack, their scrupulous adherance to the rule of law has bound them to pass this piece of legislation that makes their evacuation legal.

Does that pretty much sum up your position?

[03_SHOOTER]

So, you are contending that this is not simply a routine piece of legislation that allows this particular Congress to decide to meet in an alternate location in the event of some slow moving act of God or man, but rather a secret conspiracy for Congress to avoid a destructive act that they either planned or already have knowledge of?

Furthermore, while they were planning (or after they were notified of) this impending disaster-attack, their scrupulous adherance to the rule of law has bound them to pass this piece of legislation that makes their evacuation legal.

Does that pretty much sum up your position?

My apologies for not responding more promptly as I somehow managed to overlook your post.

First of all, this is anything but a "routine piece of legislation" as to my knowledge (if you have contradictory evidence to present, please do so), no Bill of this type has ever been placed before Congress. Secondly, if there is some "slow moving act of God or man" that isn't covered by the existing emergency provisions, all Congress would have to do is adjourn for a few days until the aforementioned 'act' passed. Thirdly, why would this particular Bill only apply to THIS Congress, and not all subsequent Congress's?

Now, my "position" on this is that it is to my knowledge unprecedented, and as it applies to only this Congress, and given the rather contentious political and economic climate in the country today, it wouldn't surprise me in the least for the cowards in the Congress to make all necessary provisions to ensure their own survival while they're selling the rest of us down the river lest some certain members of the Unorganized Militia deem it necessary to actually hold them accountable for their blatantly unconstitutional abrogations and gross mismanagement of our nation.

(Oh, and to return the favor of your pointing out my previous spelling errors, it's ADHERENCE, not "adherance". Just thought you'd like to know.)

[Ben Shotalot]

While I know what the individual words mean, what does "CONCURRENT RESOLUTION" mean in legal speak?

Was this passed with another piece of legislation? Is it something they must pass every year?

:recon:

[HairyEyeball]

A 'concurrent resolution' is a bill agreed on by both Houses and submitted to the President for 'informational purposes', not for signature, ergo without the force of law. It is not technically 'legislation' unless and until voted on as 'binding' - in effect, 'law' - it merely expresses (serious) intent.

[Ben Shotalot]

OK, then. I guess my next question would be is this something that has occured every year (or since 2001) as a precaution just in case a plane decides to fall out of the sky and drop on the rotunda?

Is there a law, or something inferred in charter that says that "the congress shall meet...."? If so, then this may be a way to make it legal to move the meeting place to another location in the time of emergency.

Something like that would stop people from saying that "laws were not passed legally because congress did not assemble at the proper place of duty.... blah blah blah".

Thoughts?

:recon:

[Billyd]

The Constitution states in Article I Section 4 Clause 2:

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 20th Amendment, section 2.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

So, while they are required to meet, the Constitution is mute on the location. For what it's worth, they could meet in HE's living room and be legal. And I am sure that would be an interesting sit-down.

[Ben Shotalot]

Well then, maybe they want to make sure it is legal for them to hold Congress on the beach in the US Virgin Islands.

Still want to know if this is a housecleaning type of a resolution that is passed every year, and if so, when did it start?

:recon:

[03_SHOOTER]

The Constitution states in Article I Section 4 Clause 2:



So, while they are required to meet, the Constitution is mute on the location. For what it's worth, they could meet in HE's living room and be legal. And I am sure that would be an interesting sit-down.

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4; "Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

Also, as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 specifically defines that area that is to be defined as the "seat of government" as what we now call Washington D.C., I would be forced to respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague from the great State of Florida.

The Constitution specifies that what we now know as Washington DC is the "seat of government" in which the Congress "shall be sitting", and therefore under the Constitution, they may not meet in HE's living room unless this particular Bill is voted on by Congress and signed by the Kenyan illegal immigrant.

[Billyd]

I stand corrected.

I still contend that it would be an interesting conversation. And very educational, especially for our 535 "employees."

[03_SHOOTER]

I stand corrected.

No problem my friend.

I still contend that it would be an interesting conversation. And very educational, especially for our 535 "employees."

Now in that respect you are 100% correct! :D I have no doubt that they would either learn to understand and respect the Constitution, as written (rather than how they "interpret" it), or they would learn the true meaning of the phrase "smacked upside the suck"!

[Ben Shotalot]

Then this demonstrates a couple of things to me:

That they understand the Constitution enough at small details that they know what needs to be done to do things legally and
That they choose to ignore the larger laws of the Constitution and go ahead and do things illegally.


:recon:

[03_SHOOTER]

Then this demonstrates a couple of things to me:

That they understand the Constitution enough at small details that they know what needs to be done to do things legally and
That they choose to ignore the larger laws of the Constitution and go ahead and do things illegally.


:recon:

Exactly. They do just enough to not get busted for the small things, and hide behind the "ambiguities" they've invented to avoid prosecution for the really big things.