As political tensions rise in the U.S., Congress is preparing for the possibility of a major “mass casualty event” that could dramatically change its makeup.
With recent assassination attempts and increasingly heated public discourse, lawmakers are considering drastic steps, including a possible Constitutional Amendment that would allow for the direct appointment of House representatives in the event of mass vacancies.
According to the Constitution, any emerging vacancies in the House must be filled through elections, unlike Senate vacancies which can be filled by appointment.
However, following the events of 9/11, a law was enacted to enable rapid elections if over 100 House seats are vacant—supposedly to keep the government running as smoothly as possible by expediting the process.
But now, with the shadow of political violence looming large, lawmakers are opportunistically pushing for a system where governors can swiftly appoint new members to Congress, fundamentally circumventing the People’s right to directly elect these individuals by vote.
On Thursday, during a subcommittee hearing on “Preparing for the Future by Learning From the Past,” lawmakers gathered to discuss the amendment.
Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-D), a leading proponent of the bill, stated during the hearing, “Congress hasn’t fully considered the implications of a mass casualty event affecting members and the impact it would have on our ability to function in a time of need.”
In other words, they are about to consider it. Kilmer is pushing for the bill to be called to the floor for a vote.
Under the proposed legislation, elected representatives would be required to compile a list of potential successors deemed qualified to serve in Congress.
In the event that a House member’s seat becomes vacant due to death or incapacitation, a state governor would have only 10 days to appoint someone from this list, allowing for a replacement until a special election can be held.
Although intended as a temporary measure until special elections are held, it raises the question of whether unforeseen emergencies could arise, delaying the election, allowing unelected representatives to remain in office longer than expected.
The bill could set a dangerous precedent, particularly in a time when public trust in the electoral process is already fragile.
In fact, it’s no surprise that the discussions regarding the bill come just weeks before the 2024 presidential election is set to take place.
Following the election in 2020, Trump supporters stood in unity at the Capitol building on January 6th, to protest the certification of the election over fears that their votes were disenfranchised by fraudulent activity.
During the protest, supporters were ushered into the building by officers in what appeared to be a false flag operation to frame patriots as insurrections, despite no proof of the claim and therefore no insurrection charges against anyone arrested.
Many Republican voters are understandably on edge as we approach the upcoming election as the fears of disenfranchisement that marked the last election continue to grow.
Unlike last time, voters are now more aware of potential fraud as they prepare to scrutinize the electoral process closely. The moment voters get a whiff of suspected fraud, there will likely be an immediate uproar.
This begs the question of if this recent legislative maneuvering is a desperate attempt by the regime to shield itself from the inevitable backlash of a population that feels betrayed yet again. Are they gearing up for not just for an electoral contest, but a full-scale confrontation from the people whose votes they continue to undermine?
The implications are chilling.
Ultimately, it’s clear that the elite in Washington are more concerned about maintaining their power than truly representing those they are meant to serve, and this bill further proves that.
Watch the full video from Thursday’s hearing:
