I was commenting on this on someone else's journal....
The whole "emergency constitution" isn't such a new idea -- it's been talked about at least since the Soviets got the bomb. I don't know if I necessarily think it's a bad idea. If DC gets nuked while Congress is in session, we're not going to want to wait until we can elect a quorum of legislators before dealing with it.
I do wish that it had been passed as an act of Congress -- that whole Article I of the Constitution seems to indicate, you know, that they're the ones who get to make legislation, which is what this is. Between Executive Orders and signing statements, this administration is completely beyond the bounds of what they're allowed to do by more than 200 years of jurisprudence. But the idea itself isn't something I have a problem with.
no subject
The whole "emergency constitution" isn't such a new idea -- it's been talked about at least since the Soviets got the bomb. I don't know if I necessarily think it's a bad idea. If DC gets nuked while Congress is in session, we're not going to want to wait until we can elect a quorum of legislators before dealing with it.
I do wish that it had been passed as an act of Congress -- that whole Article I of the Constitution seems to indicate, you know, that they're the ones who get to make legislation, which is what this is. Between Executive Orders and signing statements, this administration is completely beyond the bounds of what they're allowed to do by more than 200 years of jurisprudence. But the idea itself isn't something I have a problem with.