The joint session is quickly rejecting an amendment that would re-establish and revamp county government. Next up is an amendment that has been recommended for passage that would create a procedure to keep government operating in the event of “disaster caused by enemy or terrorist attack.”
UPDATE: the emergency appointment amendment was advanced by voice vote to a third reading. I assume that they have to take a roll call at some point to send it to the next session, but I’m not sure when they’re going to do that.
Please share widely!
ron-newman says
An earthquake or a hurricane could easily do as much damage to Boston as a terrorist attack.
david says
But the literal language of the amendment doesn’t appear to cover natural disasters.
ryepower12 says
the terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming! We better build a fence bordering Mexico!!!
<
p>
/sarcasm off
ryepower12 says
is this on TV? anywhere I could watch this?
david says
ryepower12 says
sadly, not on my channel 44. It was C-Span (which is what I’d assume would cover it)…
<
p>
It’s not all that rare that the Southcoast doesn’t get the same coverage as up in greater boston.
<
p>
I checked c-span 2 and it wasn’t on there, either. No biggy. I’m enjoying your coverage =)
<
p>
Keep it up =p
david says
is WGBH’s (PBS) second station. On my cable, it’s actually ch. 10, but your results may vary!
danseidman says
I assume he meant broadcast channel 44, the other PBS station. I think it’s WGBX. On my cable it’s channel 16; it might be on yours somewhere.
<
p> – Dan
ryepower12 says
Found it. Thanks.
<
p>
(someone knock me on the head… that was pretty dim-witted of me).
ed-prisby says
I just assumed my government, county or otherwise, would continue to operate in event of a terrorist attack. Did we really need an amendment for this? If so, how scary is that?
david says
the point is to put in place a procedure to fill seats quickly, in the event that more than a third of either chamber is killed by an attack. At present, there’s no way to do that other than hold a bunch of special elections, which isn’t that quick.
ed-prisby says
Well, that’s less funny then.
ryepower12 says
I’m not sure i’d be keen on any procedure to fill seats all that quickly, unless we elect quasi-backups… sort of like understudies lol.
<
p>
Actually, that’s not a bad idea now that I think of it… if it were a seperate election. It would mean that person would have to stay up to speed… and could be extended to fill in if the rep or Senator retires.
<
p>
And it would certainly be a fair and democratic way to fill in any seats that would otherwise cause an emergency.
<
p>
Maybe I should be a Congressmen! hehe.
peter-porcupine says
ron-newman says
the amendment is specifically about how to fill vacancies, especially if more than 1/3 of either house becomes vacant as a result of an attack.
<
p>
I would vote to reject this until natural disasters are added to it.
cdinboston says
I think the concept relates more to succession planning and continuity of government in the event of an enemy or terrorist attack. In other words, how should the government operate (or recover) when the current constitution or current law gives specified powers to certain people and those specified people are all killed?
<
p>
For example, if there was an attack now on the State House — and all of the seats in the House of Representatives and Senate were suddenly vacant — I’m sure the state government could continue to operate, but it would take months for special elections to fill the vacant seats in order for the legislature to reconstitute itself in order to pass legislation.
<
p>
The proposed amendment permits legislation to provide for prompt and temporary succession to the powers and duties of public offices and for continuity of government.
ron-newman says
is not just hypothetical. This Globe magazine article is worth reading:
<
p>
http://www.boston.co…
<
p>
Unlike a hurricane, this could come with no advance warning whatsoever, and it could hit the State House while it was fully occupied.