The rationale is that we need to have some policy in place for a possible election postponement before some precipitating event actually occurs. But my understanding is that we already have a policy in place on postponements: i.e., we don't do them.
Added to my suspicion is the increasingly common refrain from the White House that the Madrid bombing was responsible for Spanish 'appeasement' in Iraq and the obvious subtext that the answer to any future terrorist attack would be to 'not give in', i.e. reelect President Bush.
Added to my suspicion is the increasingly common refrain from the White House that the Madrid bombing was responsible for Spanish 'appeasement' in Iraq and the obvious subtext that the answer to any future terrorist attack would be to 'not give in', i.e. reelect President Bush.
And the Washington Post reports that Homeland Security has asked the Justice Department to advise of the legal aspects of postponing the election. Of course, the Justice Department has already advised the White House that the president is King and torture is only torture if it's permanently disabling, but I'm sure they'll be more in line with America's ideals and Constitution on this one.
In one of those interesting White House type mysteries, the head of the new Elections Commission, DeForest Soaries, told The Post that he'd written to the Dept. of Homeland Security worrying about the lack of a plan for elections if there were a terrorist attack and said he never heard back. Brian Roehrkasse, Homeland Security Department spokesman, told The Post that they were reviewing Soaries's letter and had referred the matter to DoJ. But Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki says there was no letter and no request, but is refusing to say how the matter had come up.
Asked about that, a Homeland Security official said, "We have raised the issue with them, but we have not formally sent over a request." He spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the matter.
Well, jeez. Everything is so freaking secretive any more. But heaven knows there is no shortage of conflicting stories.
Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, says it's really a "doomsday scenario" exercise.
"This is a lot like what we were looking at in the Congress," Cox said on CNN's "Late Edition" yesterday. "What would happen if terrorists blew up the Congress and it disappeared?"
No comment.
Cox noted that "September 11, 2001, among all the other things remembered for, was a primary election day. And they were able, in New York, to cancel those primary elections and move them to some other time. There isn't anybody that has that authority to do that for federal elections, so what Secretary Ridge has asked the Justice Department to do is, give me a legal memo, tell me what will be necessary.
...By federal law, elections are held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But by the same federal law, states may vary the date.
The one certainty is that presidential term must end on Jan. 20 every four years.
Gardner said he thought Congress probably has some implicit authority to deal with elections in a catastrophic situation. But, he said, it would be wise for Congress to take some clarifying action well in advance of such a scenario, rather than in the middle of it.
"You want some authority somewhere to deal with unforeseen problems like this," he said. "On the other hand, you don't want sitting politicians messing around with procedures established by law."
...By federal law, elections are held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But by the same federal law, states may vary the date.
The one certainty is that presidential term must end on Jan. 20 every four years.
Gardner said he thought Congress probably has some implicit authority to deal with elections in a catastrophic situation. But, he said, it would be wise for Congress to take some clarifying action well in advance of such a scenario, rather than in the middle of it.
"You want some authority somewhere to deal with unforeseen problems like this," he said. "On the other hand, you don't want sitting politicians messing around with procedures established by law."
Which I think is Bob's point, and perhaps the one viable one I've seen so far. Still, if each state may vary the date of the federal election, I would think that would be sufficient to take care of any eventuality. And I still think the whole thing is something to keep people unnecessarily stirred up, and softened up to the idea that our laws and Constitution are flexible and our rights and liberties disposable in the face of "terror".
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Graphic from Old American Century
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!