U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–082 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–517

ENSURING THE CONTINUITY OF THE UNITED

STATES GOVERNMENT: A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO GUARANTEE A FUNCTIONING CONGRESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 27, 2004

Serial No. J–108–54

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ............................ 5

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 4

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 45

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 47

WITNESSES 

Levinson, Sanford V., W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. 

Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School, Austin, Texas .... 10

Simpson, Alan K., Co-Chairman, Continuity in Government Commission, and 

former Senator, Cody, Wyoming ......................................................................... 7

Wasserman, Howard M., Assistant Professor, Florida International University 

College of Law, Miami, Florida ........................................................................... 11

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Sanford V. Levinson to questions submitted by Senators Leahy 

and Feingold ......................................................................................................... 20

Responses of Howard W. Wasserman to questions submitted by Senators 

Leahy and Feingold ............................................................................................. 28

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Gerhardt, Michael J., Arthur B. Hanson Professor of Law, William & Mary 

Law School, Williamsburg, Virginia, letter ........................................................ 42

Glennon, Michael J., Professor of International Law, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, letter .................................................................................. 44

Levinson, Sanford V., W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. 

Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School, Austin, Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 49

Rotunda, Ronald D., George Mason Univerisity, School of Law, Arlington, 

Virginia, letter ...................................................................................................... 62

Rundquist, Paul, Specialist in American National Government, Government 

and Finance Division, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., 

memorandum ........................................................................................................ 65

Simpson, Alan K., Co-Chairman, Continutiy in Government Commission, and 

Former Senator, Cody, Wyoming, prepared statement ..................................... 68

Tribe, Laurence H., Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law, 

Harvard University Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, letter ............... 74

Volokh, Eugene, Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, 

Los Angeles, California, letter ............................................................................ 75

Wasserman, Howard M., Assistant Professor, Florida International University 

College of Law, Miami, Florida, prepared statement ........................................ 77

(1)

ENSURING THE CONTINUITY OF THE UNITED 

STATES GOVERNMENT: A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO GUARANTEE 

A FUNCTIONING CONGRESS 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn presiding. 

Present: Senators Cornyn, Craig, and Feingold. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. This hearing of the Senate Committee on the 

Judiciary shall come to order. I want to start by thanking Chairman Hatch for scheduling this important hearing in the full Committee. Last fall, with his blessing, I chaired two Judiciary Committee hearings on the problems of continuity in Government with 

respect to both Houses of Congress, as well as the presidency. 

On September 9, I chaired a hearing that looked at continuity 

problems facing Congress, and I was joined by my colleague, Senator Leahy. On September 16, I co-chaired a hearing with Senator 

Lott, Chairman of the Rules Committee, on problems with our 

presidential succession law. We were joined in that effort by a 

number of distinguished members, including Senators Dodd, Feingold, and DeWine. 

On November 5, 2 months after those hearings took place, I introduced a constitutional amendment and implementing legislation. 

That proposal was designed to address the problems of continuity 

of Government facing both Houses of Congress, as identified by experts during both September hearings. 

Today’s hearing will begin the process of considering that constitutional amendment. In addition, today I will introduce implementing legislation, called the Continuity of Senate Act of 2004. 

This bill is cosponsored by Senators Lott and Dodd, and that, of 

course, is appropriate because the legislation is subject to the jurisdiction of the Senate Rules Committee. I will speak more on that 

in just a moment. 

I want to begin my opening statement by thanking Senator 

Leahy and his staff for working with my office to put together today’s important hearing, which is entitled ‘‘Ensuring the ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Aug 26, 2004 Jkt 094082 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\94082.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
2

tinuity of the U.S. Government: A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Guarantee a Functioning Congress.’’ 

Two days before the 2-year anniversary of 9/11, this Committee 

examined potential vulnerabilities of our constitutional system of 

government. As painful as it is to recall the events of September 

11, it is a stark reminder of how close terrorists came that day to 

decapitating the U.S. Government. 

Were it not for the late departure of United Airlines flight 93 and 

the ensuing heroism of its passengers, the Capitol Building might 

have been destroyed, potentially killing numerous Senators and 

Representatives, and perhaps even disabling Congress itself. 

The American people simply must be able to rely upon a functioning Congress in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack. Although not in session year around, Congress no doubt would need 

to convene immediately in a time of crisis. In the days and weeks 

following September 11, Congress enacted numerous emergency 

laws and appropriations measures to stabilize our economy, to address the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, and to bolster national 

security. 

Yet, today we lack the constitutional tools needed to ensure continuity of Congressional operations. Under our Constitution, a majority of each House of Congress is necessary in order to constitute 

a quorum to do business. After all, our Founders understood the 

need for a nationally-representative Congress, and rightly so. 

That important commitment carries with it certain 

vulnerabilities, however. If a terrorist attack killed a majority of 

House members, Congress would be disabled until special elections 

were conducted around the country, a process that could take 

months, according to every election official who has contacted my 

office—time that we may not have. Moreover, if a majority of Representatives is incapacitated, the House would be shut down until 

the inauguration of a new Congress, a delay of potentially as long 

as 2 years. 

The situation could be even more dire in the Senate. The 17th 

Amendment permits State legislatures to empower Governors to 

make immediate appointments to fill vacancies in the Senate, and 

every State, except Oregon and Wisconsin, has chosen to do so. Yet, 

the Constitution provides no mechanism for dealing with Senators 

who are incapacitated, but not killed. If a biological weapons attack 

incapacitated a majority of Senators, Congress could be shut down 

for 4 years. 

Our Constitution does not prepare us for such dire consequences 

because our Founding Fathers could not have contemplated the 

horrors of 9/11. After all, they lived in a world free of weapons of 

mass destruction. They established a presidency to command an 

Army and Navy, but no Air Force. They structured our system of 

government specifically to disfavor standing armies. 

Yet, the Founders, in their great wisdom, well understood that 

they could not predict everything that this new Nation might someday need, or what the future might someday hold. They wisely ratified the Constitution specifically because it included a built-in procedure for amendment or self-correction in Article V of the Constitution. 

3

Accordingly, last November I introduced a constitutional amendment and accompanying legislation to ensure continuity of Congress in a manner consistent with the vision of the Founders. The 

amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 23, authorizes Congress to 

enact laws providing for Congressional succession, just as Article II 

of the Constitution authorizes laws providing for presidential succession. 

The implementing legislation, S. 1820, authorizes each State to 

craft its own mechanism for filling vacancies and redressing incapacities in its Congressional delegation, just as the 17th Amendment authorizes States to decide how to fill vacancies in the Senate. 

My proposed amendment authorizes the creation of special emergency procedures that would be available for 120 days, or longer 

if at least one-fourth of either House continues to remain vacant 

or occupied by incapacitated members. 

Any appointment or election of a member of Congress made pursuant to such emergency powers would last for as long as the law 

would allow; that is, until expiration of the regular term of office 

or earlier, as Congress may allow. But the emergency procedures 

themselves would be available only for the period of time permitted 

under the proposed constitutional amendment. 

Now, I recognize that some House members favor emergency interim appointments to ensure immediate continuity of House operations, while others prefer to rely solely on expedited special elections. My November proposal takes no side in that debate. 

Some States, in order to expedite the conduct of special elections, 

may be prepared to adopt Internet voting, enact same-day registration laws, or abandon party primaries, while other States may be 

concerned that expedited special elections are undemocratic or will 

disenfranchise military voters. Under my approach, each State 

would make its own choice. 

Moreover, today I will introduce new implementing legislation focused exclusively on the Senate, called the Continuity of the Senate 

Act of 2004, cosponsored by Senators Lott and Dodd. If House 

members decide to rely solely on special elections to cure continuity 

problems in their chamber, I will not do anything to stand in their 

way. By the same token, the House should not prevent Senators 

from resolving continuity problems in this chamber. This proposal 

gets the job done, while respecting the prerogatives of each House 

of Congress. It deserves to be enacted into law. 

Twenty years ago, after nearly killing Prime Minister Margaret 

Thatcher and leading members of her government, IRA terrorists 

issued a chilling threat. They said, remember, we only have to be 

lucky once; you have to be lucky always. The American people 

should not have to rely on luck. They deserve a constitutional system of government that is failsafe and fool-proof. Nobody likes to 

plan for their own demise, but failure to do so is not an option. We 

must plan for the unthinkable now, before our luck ever runs out. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a submission for the record.] 

With that, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, which I chair, Senator Feingold, 

4

for any remarks he might make, and also to say thank you to Senator Craig for his attendance at this important hearing today. 

Senator Feingold.

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me welcome the witnesses, and especially my friend and former colleague, 

Senator Simpson. It was such a pleasure to serve with him. 

It is good to see you again and I look forward to hearing from 

you again. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for your work on 

this issue. I appreciate your initiative and leadership. You and 

your staff have put a lot of thought and effort into this and I think 

it shows. 

In the 2 years and 4 months since the attacks of September 11, 

we have been repeatedly reminded that there are terrorists working everyday to attack our country wherever it is most vulnerable. 

The threats we face are very real, and certainly a massive attack 

on the Federal Government would achieve many of the terrorists’ 

goals. 

Of course, our first duty as legislators is to do what we can to 

protect the American people, but we must also recognize the possibility of future terrorist attacks and plan for them. 

Discussions about the continuity of Government and about various hypothetical scenarios that could occur in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack may seem to some abstract and farfetched. But in the terrible event that any of these nightmare scenarios should come true, many lives depend on the ability of the 

legislative and executive branches to effectively respond. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I approach all proposals to amend 

the Constitution with great caution. As the charter that provides 

the structure and basic rules for our entire system of Government, 

the Constitution strikes innumerable balances we must be wary of 

disrupting. Any changes in this fundamental structure can have 

far-reaching consequences, and constitutional amendments are immensely difficult to undo. 

For this reason, whenever there is a proposal to amend the Constitution, I believe we should ask first whether the problem can be 

solved with legislation rather than a constitutional amendment. If 

any of the witnesses believe there are proposals other than a constitutional amendment that would adequately protect the continuity of our Government, and in particular the legislative branch, 

I would be particularly interested to hear them say so. 

But I do recognize that there are some problems that probably 

can’t be solved by legislation, and that providing for the continuity 

of Congress may well be one of them. Mass vacancies or incapacitations in the House or Senate could seriously obstruct Congress 

from responding to the crisis created by a catastrophic terrorist attack. 

Today, we face the threat of attacks on a scale that would have 

been unimaginable not many years ago. And we know, historical 

events can sometimes alert us to vulnerabilities or flaws in our 

constitutional structure. The assassination of President Kennedy 

5

led to the adoption of the 25th Amendment. It may well be that 

the attacks of September 11 should lead to the adoption of the 28th 

Amendment. 

The goal of this amendment is unquestionably laudable and the 

structure it proposes may well prove to be the best option. A lot 

of hard work has already been done here and I look forward to 

working with you, Mr. Chairman, to find the best way to protect 

our democracy. I am grateful again to our panel and look forward 

to hearing from them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Feingold, for your comments. 

Senator Craig, we would be pleased to hear any opening comments you might have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I have to 

chair another hearing in a few moments, but I am so pleased that 

our former colleague and my neighbor out West, Al Simpson, is 

here, along with his wife. We still gain on a regular basis the wisdom of Senator Simpson, often through the media. It causes us to 

pause and react. 

But let me give for the record a personal experience that I think 

clearly recognizes what you are trying to do, Senator, with S.J. 23 

and S. 1820. For those of us who were here on 9/11, it was obvious 

in a very short period of time how unprepared we were to handle 

an emergency of the kind that we were at that time involved in, 

or how impossible it would have become had this area or portions 

of this campus been struck by an aircraft of the magnitude that occurred at the Pentagon and/or certainly at the Trade Center. 

I and others evacuated the Hill. I live on the Hill, so I went home 

and got on the phone and started calling around my State of Idaho 

to calm nerves and to give impressions of what was going on. Late 

in the afternoon, it became obvious to me that something needed 

to be done here as a core activity. I was then part of the elected 

leadership, but I was one rung below those who were evacuated to 

Virginia, to our undisclosed location. 

But I happened to have had that phone number, so I and other 

leaders and other members, House and Senate, gathered at the 

Capitol Hill Police Station and we began to express our concern to 

the sequestered leaders how important it was that the Congress 

immediately in some form make an expression. We were encouraged to go home, not to assemble. We still did not yet know the 

magnitude of the threat that might have been ongoing. 

Our leaders were sequestered and they did not feel or understand the emotion that was sweeping across the country at that 

time, I believe. We were watching television. They were not. We 

were calling home. They were not. Finally, I and others, Democrat 

and Republican, said no, we are not going home; we are going to 

assemble. 

6

We were told by the leaders that they would be returning to the 

Capitol grounds at a certain hour to hold a press conference. We 

said, fine, we will meet you there. We did. You all saw that. You 

all saw us standing on the steps of the Capitol as our leaders came 

back and expressed their concern and what we would be doing in 

a public press conference. And, of course, then we all broke into a 

song of unity, our National prayer, ‘‘God Bless America.’’ 

That was probably, in that day, the most singly important thing 

that the Congress of the United States did for the psyche of the 

American people. It was played hour after hour for a good number 

of days following, just that simple act of the Congress standing on 

the steps of this Nation’s Capitol singing this Nation’s prayer. It 

was a statement of unity of a kind that could have been expressed 

no other way. 

My expression here today is to suggest that a Congress that can 

be, if damaged, reconstituted very quickly is critical to the character, the strength, and the stability of this Nation, there is no 

question about it, because for days afterwards, if not for months, 

I received phone calls and letters of expression from people who 

had witnessed all of us collectively on the steps of the Capitol that 

day. 

I then began to recognize how critically important it is that there 

be continuity, and that it be seen and heard and understood clearly 

by the American people because if, for instance, the worst would 

have happened, to see our Capitol struck would have been a phenomenally devastating blow on the psyche of the American people, 

let alone our systems of government. 

So, anyway, I am pleased you are doing this work. I agree with 

Senator Feingold. I have always been extremely cautious in how we 

approach amending our Constitution, but you may well be right. 

This may be an area where we need to be clear, precise, and allow 

for this kind of continuity to go forward. 

I thank you for your work, and to all of our panelists, thank you 

for coming today. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Craig, for your comments. 

We are fortunate to have before the Committee today a distinguished panel of witnesses. We have asked them to come here to 

discuss, as Senator Feingold stated, the need for a constitutional 

amendment to ensure continuity of Congressional operations in the 

wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack and to determine whether 

one particular proposed amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 23, 

fits the bill. 

As others have alluded to, Senator Alan K. Simpson, of course, 

needs no introduction to this body or to this Committee, but I will 

give him a short one nonetheless. Senator Simpson served in the 

United States Senate from 1978 to 1997, acting as the Minority 

Whip for ten of those years. He was an active and distinguished 

member of this Committee, as well as the Finance Committee, the 

Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging. As a veteran who served in Germany during the 

final months of the Allied occupation, he chaired the Veterans Affairs Committee. 

Before his election to the U.S. Senate, Mr. Simpson served in the 

Wyoming House of Representatives, rising to the office of Speaker 

7

in 1977. Following his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Senator Simpson 

served as Director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government from 1998 to 2000. 

Today, he is a visiting lecturer at the University of Wyoming and 

a partner in a Washington-based government relations firm and a 

Denver-based law firm. 

Of course, Senator Simpson co-chairs with Lloyd Cutler the Continuity of Government Commission, a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission of distinguished public servants established by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution to examine 

the problems of continuity of all three branches of Government. 

Senator Simpson keeps a very busy schedule. I know this because we wanted him to testify at our hearing last September. He 

wanted to, as well, but unfortunately we could not work out the 

timing. So I am thrilled that the timing has worked out today and 

I am pleased that he is here to share his expertise based on years 

of experience and careful study. 

I am pleased to introduce from my home State of Texas Professor 

Sandy Levinson, of the University of Texas Law School, in Austin. 

Professor Levinson is the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John 

Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law and Professor of Government, and is an internationally recognized expert in constitutional 

law. 

He is the author of numerous books and law review articles, including ‘‘Constitutional Faith: Written in Stone,’’ and of particular 

relevance to today’s topic a book entitled Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment. 

He received his bachelor’s degree from Duke, a Ph.D. from Harvard, and a law degree from Stanford. 

Professor Howard Wasserman completes our panel. He is an assistant professor of law at Florida International University College 

of Law, in Miami, and previously served as a visiting assistant professor of law at Florida State University College of Law and a law 

clerk for Chief Judge James T. Giles, of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Jane R. Roth 

on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 

A graduate of Northwestern Law School, Professor Wasserman 

has published numerous articles on the subject of continuity of government. He testified last September at the joint hearing of the 

Senate Judiciary and Rules Committees in favor of reforming the 

presidential succession law. 

Professor, it is good to see you again, and thank you all for being 

here today. 

Senator Simpson, if I may start with you, please, we would be 

happy to hear your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON, CO-CHAIRMAN, CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION, AND FORMER 

UNITED STATES SENATOR, CODY, WYOMING 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, thank you very much, Senator Cornyn. This 

is a treat to see my old friend, Russ Feingold. We served together, 

enjoyed each other’s company, and our spouses, too. I always had 

great regard and respect for him. 

8

I did not get the opportunity to serve with you, but I can tell you 

you are a leader especially on this issue, and I admire that very 

much. And Larry Craig, the Lion of the West, an old friend. 

You said you were doing this with Orrin’s blessing and, of course, 

we always needed that here in this chamber. Orrin would give his 

blessing to all of us. As he would say, would you please—no, I 

won’t go into it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SIMPSON. And then, of course, Pat Leahy and his staff whom 

I see today, and staff around the room; to all of you, greetings. I 

know what you are here for, to sort it all out and run back, all of 

you in the back there saying I heard Simpson and Sandy and Howard testify; I think they are all goofy. I know how it works, but listen carefully to this one because this is an important issue. This 

one will not go away. 

So it is fun to come into the lion’s den here, familiar surroundings, 18 years here in this Committee. And, of course, I am 

going to do something that I remember always doing. I ask that the 

full text of my remarks be entered into the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Without objection. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Isn’t that wonderful the way I did that? We always 

used to do that from up there, but I wanted to get ahead and I 

have done that. Thank you, Senator. 

My wife of 50 years is here. It is hard to believe that she would 

have stuck it out that long. She spent a few hours in this room, 

and she has been a great helpmate of mine. You cannot succeed in 

politics without a supportive spouse, so she is right there. Yes, she 

is. I brought her for defense purposes, because we left Washington 

undaunted and unindicted, and it was a wonderful experience. 

Now, I am going to take four more minutes. I know how this game 

works. I thank you. 

The Continuity of Government Commission is a no-nonsense 

group. Let me just tell you quickly who is on it because you don’t 

read the letterhead. Lloyd Cutler and I co-chair it: Phil Bobbit, Ken 

Duberstein, Tom Foley, Charles Fried, Newt Gingrich, Jamie 

Gorelick, Nick Katzenbach, Judge Robert Katzman, Lynn Martin, 

Kweisi Mfume, Bob Michel, Leon Panetta, and Donna Shalala. 

We have held two full-day public hearings, heard testimony from 

all sorts of groups, didn’t want to go really to a constitutional 

amendment, but found ourselves looking clearly back into it because of incapacitation and other issues. 

The reason is clear; you have all stated that. 9/11 happened. It 

was not fiction, it was not a book. They will come again. The terrorism threat is not behind us. The President said at the State of 

the Union, ‘‘It is tempting to believe the danger is behind us. That 

hope is understandable, comforting, and false.’’ That is exactly 

what it is. 

The fourth plane, from all of the things we found through our investigation and the investigation of select committees, was headed 

for this Capitol, and the brave passengers took it down. The House 

was in session that morning. The Senators and House members 

were all over this campus, as Larry refers to it, and it is true. 

The Capitol Dome is made of cast iron. If that baby had hit that 

dome, the stuff would have trickled through the whole area in a 

9

molten form. I am not trying to be dramatic, so I will stop right 

there. But let me tell you that was real. 

We identified these problems in our hearings. It would take 

months to fill vacancies in the House because you have to have a 

special election. The Senators can be replaced in 48 hours, and 

many of us have been, and the Governors do that. But it takes an 

average of over 4 months to fill vacant seats in the House of Representatives, and if there were more than 50-percent vacancies 

there would be no quorum. 

They have a very lenient quorum rule in the House, which is 

something about ‘‘living,’’ which is an interesting part of it. They 

could get a smaller group, but imagine what would happen if the 

New York delegation would be the only one that survived. That 

could happen. 

There is the light. Anyway, I will come back to presidential succession in later hearings, but it is the issue of incapacitated members. They cannot be replaced by election because there is no vacancy. You can’t replace a person who is incapacitated because they 

may come back. So that is really a problem. 

We recommend the constitutional amendment. It would operate 

when there are many deaths, but if somebody can hear us over in 

the House, the word is ‘‘temporary.’’ We are talking about temporary; everything is temporary here. It is just too long to go 45 

days without having Congress in session. 

The real difficulty for us is not here in this body; it is in the 

House of Representatives. I do respect them greatly and I know 

Chairman Sensenbrenner very well. He and I have worked together. I have had a very enjoyable relationship. But I can tell you 

if the argument is continued in the House that this is simply the 

People’s House and the fact that every member of the House has 

been directly elected by the people and that if we do something 

with the Constitution it will injure the, quote, ‘‘character of the 

House,’’ I will tell you what will destroy the character of the 

House—220 of them lying in an alley out here incapacitated with 

burns, or dead. That would really change the character of the 

House. 

I would just say to you that I am astounded at the reaction in 

the House, especially the chairman, a member of my party. It is almost embarrassing. It is almost as if this commission were treated 

rudely. We have been treated rudely by the Chairman not listening 

to one shred of what we are saying, and no alternative procedures 

except one that keeps getting tossed out that you have defined. I 

hate to be that critical, but I will tell you I would be embarrassed. 

And I will tell you another thing politicians don’t like, and that 

is ridicule. And if something else happens in this country, they are 

going to come back and say where were you? Were you fast asleep? 

Why didn’t you do something? You knew. Where were you? How 

could you? 

That is all I have to say. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Simpson. 

Professor Levinson, we would be glad to hear your opening statement. 

10

STATEMENT OF SANFORD V. LEVINSON, W. ST. JOHN 

GARWOOD AND W. ST. JOHN GARWOOD, JR. CENTENNIAL 

CHAIR IN LAW, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL, AUSTIN, TEXAS 

Mr. LEVINSON. Thank you. I won’t repeat everything that is in 

the written statement. I do want to express, though, both professional and personal honor and pleasure in being here. The professional satisfaction comes from what you mentioned; that is that 

constitutional amendment has been a long-term interest of mine. 

Indeed, I am co-teaching a seminar at the Yale Law School this semester on constitutional design. But there is also a distinct personal pleasure, not simply that you are the Senator from my home 

State, but that we are of different political parties, for this seems 

to be an issue that is without the slightest partisan tilt. 

And I am delighted to have the opportunity to meet Senator 

Simpson, whom I have long admired for his candor, which was revealed this morning as well. Even though I have often disagreed 

with him politically, I am delighted to appear before you because 

I think this is an issue which really should bring all of us together 

as Americans and not as Democrats or Republicans. 

I want to address the issue that Senator Feingold raised, which 

is the reluctance to amend the Constitution. 

Senator Cornyn, you mentioned that I edited a book called Responding to Imperfection. That title comes from a letter written by 

George Washington to his nephew, Bushrod, who would later serve 

on the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Washington, of course, was, to put it mildly, no minor figure either in terms of our history or obviously the particularity of the 

Constitution itself. He was the President of the Constitutional Convention. Without Washington’s support, the Constitution never 

would have been ratified. 

What he wrote to his nephew, though, was as follows, ‘‘The 

warmest friends and the best supporters the Constitution has do 

not contend that it is free from imperfections.’’ Fortunately, when 

inevitable imperfections do manifest themselves, ‘‘there is a Constitutional door open. The People, (for it is with them to Judge) 

can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their Side, 

decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendment 

which are necessary.’’ 

Should the point not already be clear enough, Washington went 

on to say that, ‘‘I do not think we are more inspired, have more 

wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us.’’ 

I emphasize in my testimony the words ‘‘the advantage of experience.’’ Experience was crucially important to the framing generation. One can find similar statements in the Federalist Papers written by Hamilton and Madison. And it dishonors the Framers of the 

Constitution, and it really dishonors the document they handed 

down to us to assume that they thought that they had drafted a 

perfect document and that there is nothing to learn from experience. 

September 11 obviously should have served as the wake-up call 

that Senator Simpson mentioned, and it does seem to me the Constitution is grievously imperfect with regard to the kinds of contingencies that Senator Simpson mentioned. 

11

The Constitution recognizes the possibility that there will be a 

vacancy in both the presidency and vice-presidency, and therefore 

the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to pass a succession 

in office act. I commend you also for your leadership in raising 

questions about the succession in office act. But not only is that not 

a topic before us this morning, it is also a topic that clearly can 

be resolved by legislation because the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do so. 

We now recognize as a result of September 11 and the kinds of 

considerations raised by Senator Simpson and the project that he 

co-chairs that there are the same possible contingencies with Congress as there are with the presidency. And I believe that most constitutional specialists would agree that Congress does not have the 

authority simply to pass corrective legislation. 

The Constitution very clearly says that succession to the House 

is by election and by no other means. That is not a problem with 

Senators, except in the altogether foreseeable contingency that you 

and Senator Simpson mention, which is incapacitated Senators. 

And then the 17th Amendment, I think, is really quite useless. 

It seems to me, to take another term from the Constitution, that 

if a constitutional amendment is ever necessary and proper, it is 

in this instance where there is a contingency that we hope is remote, but it is certainly foreseeable. One buys insurance and writes 

wills even when one is young on the basis of what one hopes are 

remote contingencies, but it is irresponsible to assume they can 

never happen. We, I believe, know this can happen. The Constitution is deficient with regard to allowing us to respond with the 

kind of alacrity the country would need. 

There is another consideration, if I can take literally 20 more 

seconds. I spell this out more in the written testimony. If Congress 

cannot function, it is not that nothing will happen; it is that inevitably what would arise is a presidential dictatorship, as happened 

arguably with Abraham Lincoln when Congress was not in session 

during the early days of the war. 

It seems to me again that all Americans, regardless of party, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative, must agree on 

the essential importance of a functioning Congress, and that this 

amendment is an important and necessary first step toward assuring that. 

Thank you very, very much for inviting me and thank you very 

much for taking the lead on this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levinson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Professor Levinson, for your testimony and your generous remarks. 

Professor Wasserman, we would be pleased to have your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD M. WASSERMAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE 

OF LAW, MIAMI, FLORIDA 

Mr. WASSERMAN. Thank you, Chairman Cornyn, and thank you 

for inviting me to address this Committee and to participate in this 

distinguished panel. 

12

What I referred to in my written statement as the Cornyn Plan—

a combination of an amendment and some implementing legislation—is the exact proper approach to the question of continuity of 

Congress because it utilizes a short, broad, and very general constitutional amendment that vests in Congress the power to provide 

by law appropriate procedures in order to replace large numbers of 

incapacitated, disabled, or deceased members of both Houses of 

Congress, and thereby to ensure that we have a functioning Congress and a functioning Government, as that Government is imagined under a system of separation of powers. 

What is important about the amendment is that it punts the entire issue to Congress to then deal with in its discretion through 

the ordinary legislative process. And it is that process which is far 

more deliberative and can be far more detailed where the real details and the real vagaries of constitutional continuity can be 

spelled out. So as you indicated in your opening remarks, even if 

there is a difference between the House and Senate as to what the 

proper procedure is, the amendment is still a good idea just to lay 

every possibility out on the table. 

I would draw the Committee’s particular attention to the absolute necessity of the amendment with regard to incapacitations or 

disabilities, because the Constitution nowhere mentions and nowhere provides any procedures for dealing with the disability of individual legislators. 

This contrasts with Article II and the 25th Amendment which 

deal specifically with presidential disability and delegate to Congress power to deal with that situation. The triggering language in 

Article I, section 2, and the 17th Amendment as to Congress is 

‘‘when vacancies happen,’’ and in the absence of a vacancy there 

can be no election, there can be no appointment, and there can be 

no other procedure of any kind established to put a member in that 

seat. 

The two leading Supreme Court decisions on the question of Congressional qualifications are Powell v. McCormick and U.S. Limits

v. Thornton. Those two cases together can be understood as standing for a general rule that once a member has been chosen and 

qualifies, she must be sworn and seated. 

Except for the very limited circumstance where a two-thirds 

super-majority of one House can expel that member, neither Congress nor the States has any power to prevent that member from 

taking her seat or from remaining in that seat for the duration of 

her term. 

Put slightly differently, a member chosen and seated at the beginning of a Congress serves 2 or 6 years, depending on the House, 

unless and until she resigns, dies, or is expelled. Absent that vacancy, neither Congress nor the States presently has any constitutional power to fill that occupied seat even temporarily. The import 

of the amendment therefore would vest this power in Congress or, 

as under your legislation, to some delegatee of Congress. 

The last point on this, though, is to emphasize that a pure reliance on expulsion is not the answer, for two reasons. Number one, 

at some level it seems unfair to expel a faithful public servant 

merely because she is incapacitated for what may be as short as 

a week or some relatively short period of time. 

13

The broader problem is expulsion is simply procedurally impossible because it requires a two-thirds super-majority and there has 

to be a quorum in order to carry out the expulsion procedures. And 

if there can be no quorum to do ordinary business because of the 

number of incapacitated members, there cannot be a quorum to 

carry out the expulsions. 

The last point I want to make actually focuses on the implementing legislation, and I discuss this further in my written statement. It is just to suggest the change that any implementing legislation make it mandatory that the States enact these procedures 

by changing the language ‘‘may enact’’ to ‘‘shall enact.’’ 

The one thing that we do need is some level of national uniformity and national certainty, and any delays by the States, even 

unintentional, in implementing and carrying out these procedures 

could threaten the ability of Congress either to function at all or 

to force Congress to function in a very small, skeletal, unrepresentative fashion. Congress can avoid that problem by requiring 

that the States implement and carry out these necessary procedures. 

With that change, I express strong support for both elements of 

the Cornyn plan, and I urge this Committee and this Congress 

quickly to consider and enact both elements. Thank you again for 

the opportunity to address this panel. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasserman appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much, Professor Wasserman, 

and thanks to all of you for your opening statements. I know Senator Feingold and I each have some questions for you. 

If I may start perhaps with Senator Simpson, 2 days after 9/11 

Congress approved legislation expediting benefit payments to public safety officers who were killed or injured in the line of duty during the terrorist attacks. Three days after 9/11, Congress approved 

a $40 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill for recovery from and response to the attacks, as well as legislation authorizing the use of military force. 

A week later, Congress approved additional legislation both to 

stabilize and secure our airports and to provide compensation for 

the victims of 9/11. In subsequent weeks, Congress enacted several 

other bills and appropriations measures to bolster national security 

and upgrade our capabilities to combat terrorism. 

Indeed, week seven, which was right about the time, I believe, 

of the prevailing House proposal for replacement of absent members or disabled members by virtue of expedited elections, Congress 

passed the USA PATRIOT Act to deter and punish terrorists in the 

United States and around the world, and enhance law enforcement 

and investigatory tools. 

As my question suggests, we did a lot of things; this Congress did 

a lot of things in the aftermath, the 45 days after 9/11, which I believe were important to not only reassuring the country, but to providing for the victims and their families, as well as authorizing the 

President to use military force against those who played a role in 

the terrorist attacks. 

Of course, unless we have a means of rapidly replacing killed or 

disabled members of the House, none of that could have happened. 

14

Even under, I believe, the chairman’s proposal, Chairman Sensenbrenner’s proposal, it would be a 45-day election. And certainly a 

newly-elected member of the House would find it difficult to get to 

Washington and begin functioning as a fully effective member of 

Congress in such a short time. 

But we have two bodies of the Congress, the House and the Senate. The House, as you noted in your comments, Senator Simpson, 

very jealously guards its prerogative to make provision for itself 

and is not particularly welcoming of the other body to do it for it. 

I would if you could just perhaps, in your wisdom of 18 years in 

the Senate, provide any suggestions or other insight about how you 

might approach such apparently conflicting views on how the 

House ought to deal with succession. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, Senator, you can see how helpful I have been 

already in that area. Sweeping things were done by the Congress 

in those days, within days. The American public was heartened by 

that. I am one of those people who lives in Cody, Wyoming, and 

said what are they going to do? And you did marvelous things, not 

just symbolism, but legislatively. 

Imagine if those legislative acts had to wait 45 days for any of 

them to pass. I will tell you the American people would be offended. They would say who threw the sand in the gears? Who did 

this? And I will tell you we would know who did it. This cannot 

stand. You can’t do this. 

There is a lot of fine bipartisan support in the House, Congressman Baird, Democrats and Republicans alike over there who are 

ready to do something. I think of my old pal John, of the Judiciary 

Committee, and there are so many over there who would listen to 

us. I am just astounded that with all this fine bipartisan support—

and I think, as I say, you could get it from John Conyers. 

I will tell you what we need to do. We need to have the Chairman open his door and listen. We will bring the whole commission 

in. He has got a lot of pals here and a lot of fine Americans are 

here. I would like to have him see us and come. We have been 

rudely treated, and I think that is a shame. It isn’t good. 

When I had a situation with Tip O’Neill. I went to see him. He 

said, Simpson, what are you doing in here? I said here I am and 

I didn’t bring any staff with me. I just dragged my own brains in 

here; now, if you will just listen. He would say, okay, I will listen. 

Then he would light a cigar and pull up his sleeves, and then 1 

day he said, Simpson, I am going to do what you are suggesting, 

but if you tell anybody, you will never see that legislation again. 

I never told my staff, I never told anybody. Days before the deadline, he put the immigration bill on the floor of the House and got 

torn to bits by Fritz Mondale and Gary Hart, who were both running for President, on an issue which was so hot with Hispanics, 

and so on. And I think he told Fritz or Gary, look, you run for 

President, I will run the House. And that was Tip. 

So all I want is the same courtesy to sit and describe to the gentleman, whom I have enjoyed and have helped—I remember bringing him to a hearing once where he couldn’t even get in. And I said 

to Peter Rodino, let Jim Sensenbrenner in this room. He said, no, 

I don’t need to listen to anybody in the minority. I said, yes, you 

do; you can’t run a shop like that. So Peter opened the door, and 

15

I don’t think Jim had ever been in that sacred chamber. If you 

can’t do that kind of work, then the American people are appalled. 

All I am saying is it is no time for rigidity and stubbornness and 

not listening, not on an issue like this. So that is what I would do, 

and I am sure that Jim’s staff is sitting here scratching themselves, 

staring off into the East, wondering how in God’s name Simpson 

could have erupted like this. So have old Jim invite us in and we 

will all come in and just sit around for a while and chew the fat. 

Senator CORNYN. Professor Levinson, you heard both Senator 

Craig and Senator Feingold allude to a state of mind that I think 

a lot of members of Congress have when it comes to constitutional 

amendments, and I appreciate in your opening statement you directly took that on. 

There is a tremendous reluctance in this body to deal with constitutional amendments. Of course, as Senator Feingold said, if this 

amendment does pass, it would be number 28. So we haven’t been 

promiscuous in the way we have amended the Constitution by any 

means in this Nation’s history. But I believe that this is one of 

those, and as you pointed out, one with bipartisan support, that in 

some ways is not thrilling enough to command a lot of attention. 

On the other hand, when you get a proposed constitutional amendment that does get people’s blood up, it is hard to pass a constitutional amendment there, too. 

I, for one, worry that if the people are unwilling to consider 

amending our Constitution that there are occasional Federal judges 

who are happy to do that through judicial decision. And I frankly 

prefer the former rather than the latter. Now, this is not one of 

them, probably, where a judge would assert him or herself, and certainly not until after we have already suffered a terrible loss. 

Could you just expand a little bit on your point of view about 

how you think this Committee should approach constitutional 

amendments? Do you think there is any sort of objective line of demarkation between those kinds of amendments that are worthy of 

consideration and those that should not be considered, and why do 

you think this is one of them? 

Mr. LEVINSON. Well, I should confess that I am one of those people who think that the United States Constitution is much too difficult to amend. One of the articles in the book Responding to Imperfection, by another Texan, Don Lutz, who teaches at the University of Houston, looked at the United States Constitution not only 

in comparison with about 35 or 40 national constitutions around 

the world, but also with the 50 State constitutions. 

The United States Constitution is the most difficult to amend 

constitution in the world. That record had been held by the former 

Yugoslav Constitution, but we now hold it. This means, among 

other things—I think you are absolutely right—that a lot of amendment—what in other countries might have taken place through formal, self-conscious amendment—takes place not simply through judicial innovation, but also frankly through Congressional innovation and executive branch innovation because there is no good alternative. 

I agree with you that if a matter is truly controversial, it really 

is next to impossible to amend the Constitution of the United 

States. But the point is that this ought not be controversial. I just 

16

literally can’t understand why somebody being presented not only 

with the abstract possibilities, but also the reality of September 11 

would say, well, this just could never happen and I am opposed to 

amending the Constitution because it would lead to bad things. 

I can see reasons to disagree about implementing legislation, on 

what procedures should be set up. I would have Congress take a 

much stronger role, for example, rather than simply leaving it to 

the States, for reasons that have already been indicated. 

But it does seem to me that the history of constitutional amendment, at least, since the Progressive era has been that it is extremely difficult to get through amendments on issues that really 

divide the people politically. 

But there have been a number of amendments—the 25th Amendment is a fine example where people realized there is a problem. 

The only thing worse than President Kennedy’s assassination 

would have been if he had lingered. I think what provoked the 25th 

Amendment was the realization that we were totally unequipped to 

handle that possibility. 

We could handle assassination very easily. The Constitution provided for a successor. But the problem that you and Senator Simpson are focusing on we are unequipped to handle. It seems to me 

that there is a track record; that one can pass amendments dealing 

with these kinds of important issues that ought not divide us politically. It seems to me if the Constitution is ever worth amending, 

this is one of those situations. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Professor Wasserman, some have suggested that no constitutional amendment is needed to deal with incapacitated members 

because members can sign a power of attorney or somehow designate someone to serve on their behalf if they were incapacitated. 

In your view, would that solution work? Indeed, is it even constitutional? Would it be okay for me to sign a power of attorney 

and say if I am incapable of serving, then my wife or perhaps a 

friend or some constituent ought to be able to vote in the Senate 

on my behalf? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. I don’t believe so. I think the language is pretty 

clear as to both the House and the Senate as to how members can 

be chosen initially and as to how they can be placed in vacant 

seats. Other than election at the initial choosing and then election 

in a vacancy in the House and appointment for a vacancy in the 

Senate, I think that exhausts any possibilities. 

I will say I think part of the resistance particularly in the House 

to the notion of appointments is a sense of distrust of Governors, 

the risk of partisanship in the making of the appointments. I think 

one workable idea—and again a constitutional amendment would 

be necessary as to the House, but one workable possibility to overcome the concerns of partisanship is to have each member draw up 

a list of preferred successors, and the appointment, under the 17th 

Amendment, by the Governor, if we can get a 28th amendment via 

the Governor with regard to the House, and have the appointment 

made from one of those preferred successors. So you have some 

sense of the popular imprimatur from the elected member on whoever her successor will be. 

17

Number one, the appointing authority should be someone other 

than the successor. And, number two, it is absolutely the case that 

some amendment is necessary because the power simply to unilaterally select one’s own successor is not allowed by anything in the 

text of the Constitution and frankly is an undemocratic concept. 

Senator CORNYN. Senator Simpson, do you have any comments? 

Mr. SIMPSON. The real key here is ‘‘temporary,’’ ‘‘temporary preferred successors.’’ This is the key, and the House doesn’t seem to 

hear this that everything we are talking about is temporary. Do 

this maybe for 45 days. After 45 days, have whatever elections. I 

think Howard counseled me on that one before. The word here 

throughout is ‘‘temporary,’’ ‘‘temporary,’’ ‘‘temporary.’’ 

Mr. WASSERMAN. I agree. I omitted that word, but yes. I mean, 

any of these appointments, even Senate appointments, in the context of this worse-case scenario should be somewhat more limited 

in time. 

Senator CORNYN. So I gather, Senator Simpson, it would be possible to meld both the current approach in the House, Chairman 

Sensenbrenner’s approach to have a 45-day election period, and the 

approach that you propose of a temporary appointment to somehow 

have the best of both worlds, I guess, if I understand what you are 

saying. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, we have thought of everything and had the 

hearings to produce that with this group of commissioners. And we 

just keep coming back to the absoluteness of a constitutional 

amendment, but there are ways to go about it. 

One of the ones was that when you run, you designate a person 

on the ballot who, if there is a vacancy or incapacitation, that person will take over your office temporarily until the next direct election. That was discussed. A lot of those things have been discussed. 

We are not hard-nosed on it, but we don’t like to get run down the 

track with tar on us, you know, and with feathers, too. That is not 

good. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, as much of a challenge as it is to propose 

a temporary appointment, I wonder whether the idea of candidates 

designating a successor on the ballot would create other resistance. 

I was reminded when Professor Wasserman was talking about trying to depoliticize the selection of a temporary successor the old 

saw that you can’t take politics out of politics. 

It is kind of like when people talk about redistricting and say it 

is much too partisan, much too ugly, and we need to take the politics out of it, and while there are some interesting scholarly suggestions, I haven’t seen one yet that would succeed in taking the 

politics out of redistricting. 

But I believe from what we have heard this morning in your 

opening statements and the brief Q and I we have had, it sounds 

like we are all pretty much on the same page here. I do want to 

emphasize that in my conversation with Chairman Sensenbrenner, 

I have told him, out of courtesy and out of necessity, that certainly 

the House will do what the House chooses to do and that is their 

decision. 

I do hope that regardless of what the ultimate decision in the 

House is that that does not stop us from getting as good a possible 

product as we can, because simply doing nothing, I believe, is not 

18

an option. We will just have to work out those differences the best 

we can, respecting differing opinions, but also the fact that you 

have to live with the reality of the approach of people who disagree 

perhaps with the best approach to this issue. 

Before we close, I would like to provide each one of you an opportunity to provide any concluding remarks that you might have, 

things that we have not discussed that should be discussed. Of 

course, the written testimony that you have provided will be made 

part of the record, without objection, and we will leave the record 

open for a period of time, Monday next at five p.m.. We will leave 

it open until then, so anyone who wishes to provide additional written materials may do so and those will be made a part of the 

record of this hearing. 

Senator Simpson, I would be glad to hear you and Professor 

Levinson and Professor Wasserman on any concluding remarks you 

may have. Please proceed. 

Mr. SIMPSON. A very dangerous thing, Senator, and I am going 

to limit it to one minute. I want to work with the House. We have 

had House members testify before our group. We have not had 

Chairman Sensenbrenner testify, nor present anything other than 

his own bill. I would hope that we could get together and talk. I 

think we need that. 

I am not being compensated for this wonderful activity, and we 

have the AEI and the Brookings Institute sponsoring this commission. So if you don’t like the right, you can accuse them, and if you 

don’t like the left, you can accuse them. So we are working together. Our senior counselors are Norm Ornstein and Thomas 

Mann, so we get the best in those two fine people, and a fine executive director, John Fortier. 

We are not interested in controversy. We are interested in reality. Everything now is reality television. The actuality is it happened, it happened. It is not some bubbled-headed dream that happened as we watched, and it can happen again. I think it is just 

like writing a will. You don’t like writing a will because you think 

you are going to die after you sign it. So we are writing a will for 

America here and we won’t die after we sign it. 

The other thing that is so fascinating is if the goal of terrorism 

is to destroy our Government and we put something together like 

we have in mind, they will say you can’t destroy those damn fools; 

they can reconstruct, they can come back quickly. I think people 

are forgetting that. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 

Professor Levinson. 

Mr. LEVINSON. I would like just to reiterate one point: Should 

this kind of catastrophe happen and Congress isn’t able to function, 

the practical reality is not that nothing would happen, but that the 

President, for good reason in this kind of situation, would, in effect, 

seize power because the one thing we know under this sort of condition is that decisions would have to be made. 

Anybody who believes, as I certainly do, that, to put it mildly, 

Congress plays an essential role in our constitutional system ought 

not tolerate the possibility of presidential dictatorship, even a benevolent one. I think that is one of the things that makes this 

amendment just so crucial. 

19

Senator CORNYN. Professor Wasserman. 

Mr. WASSERMAN. Whatever the general opposition or apprehension or hesitancy to enact constitutional amendments may be, I 

think the central purpose of Article V was to allow for amendments 

that dealt specifically with the structure of the Federal Government, and in particular the processes and procedures by which the 

Government selects the members who are going to serve in those 

offices. Those are the types of things that the Framers recognized. 

They didn’t anticipate changes, and each generation would make 

procedural changes accordingly. This is precisely that type of procedural amendment that is absolutely anticipated by the Framers 

and which becomes a necessity in order to allow the Government 

to continue functioning as it is supposed to under the Constitution. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thanks to each of you for being here 

today and for arranging your schedules so that we could have this 

hearing. I think this has been very important, and while we seem 

to be at least here singing off the same sheet of music, we know 

that there will be a debate and that debate is important. But just 

as important as the debate, we need resolution and we need action. 

I especially want to thank you for coming here during such inclement weather. I am glad you weren’t deterred. 

Before we adjourn, I would also like to again express my thanks 

to the Chairman, Senator Hatch, and the ranking member, Senator 

Leahy, for their cooperation in this hearing. We will leave the 

record open, as I said, until five p.m. on Monday next, February 

2, for members to submit documents into the record or to ask written questions of any of the witnesses. 

With that, this hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:41 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

20


94082.001
21


94082.002
22


94082.003
23


94082.004
24


94082.005
25


94082.006
26


94082.007
27


94082.008
28


94082.009
29


94082.010
30


94082.011
31


94082.012
32


94082.013
33


94082.065
34


94082.066
35


94082.016
36


94082.017
37


94082.018
38


94082.019
39


94082.020
40


94082.021
41


94082.022
42


94082.023
43


94082.024
44


94082.025
45


94082.026
46


94082.027
47


94082.028
48


94082.029
49


94082.030
50


94082.031
51


94082.032
52


94082.033
53


94082.034
54


94082.035
55


94082.036
56


94082.037
57


94082.038
58


94082.039
59


94082.040
60


94082.041
61


94082.042
62


94082.043
63


94082.044
64


94082.045
65


94082.046
66


94082.047
67


94082.048
68


94082.049
69


94082.050
70


94082.051
71


94082.052
72


94082.053
73


94082.054
74


94082.055
75


94082.056
76


94082.057
77


94082.058
78


94082.059
79


94082.060
80


94082.061
81


94082.062
82


94082.063
83

Æ


94082.064