Jim Baird: “in that brief time let me address what this amendment really does. It is very straightforward. It says this: in the…”

“in that brief time let me address what this amendment really does. It is very straightforward. It says this: in the event of a catastrophic loss of Members, if we lose over 218, in other words more than would be required to sustain a quorum, then special provisions will apply. But only under catastrophic losses. And those special provisions are very straightforward. The membership of this body, having been elected by our constituents to perform all the vital functions under article I, would be asked upon their election to create a list of potential successors who, upon our death or incapacity in a catastrophic event, could temporarily fill our place until special elections could be held. Temporarily until special elections could be held. It is disingenuous, if not deliberately deceptive, to suggest this subverts or bans or undermines elections. We all believe direct elections should be held. The real question is this: Should we have a Congress or not? Should we have a House of Representatives? I think the Framers said we should. That is why it is article I. But, my friends, if we lose more Members than necessary to sustain a quorum, we will have a constitutional crisis. It is that simple.”