>>4599562 LB

https://www.brookings.edu/research/preserving-our-institutions-the-first-report-of-the-continuity-of-government-commission/

This seems like a big deal. Looks like it was addressed after 9/11 by the 1st Continuity of Government Commission. What if flight 93 hit the capital? They asked the question before Q did.

"RECOMMENDATION: A constitutional amendment to give Congress the power to provide by legislation for the appointment of temporary replacements to fill vacant seats in the House of Representatives after a catastrophic attack and to temporarily fill seats in the House of Representatives and Senate that are held by incapacitated members. The commission recommends an amendment of a general nature that allows Congress to address the details through implementing legislation. It believes it is essential for such a procedure to operate under emergency circumstances if many members of Congress were dead or incapacitated, but the commission leaves Congress to decide the exact circumstances under which the procedure will take effect. It recommends that temporary representatives be appointed by governors or from a list of successors drawn up in advance by each representative or senator. Given the severe consequences of an attack on Congress, the commission believes that the amendment should be adopted within a two-year period."

This recommended amendment was not made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Government_Commission

In 2009, its second report recommended amending the rules for succession to the presidency, by removing members of Congress from the line of succession, and including people who do not normally reside in Washington, D.C. in case of a catastrophic attack on the city.

Also in 2009 the Commission published a "mini-report" summarizing its First Report, and criticizing as inadequate legislation enacted by Congress in 2005 to deal with the event of a catastrophic attack on Congress.

This report came after the 'Patriot' Act, so nothing there…

Doesn't look like the put anything in NDAA…

So they just took this recommendation and sat on it?

Looks like either way you look at the Vesting Clause of the Constitution, the President can only appoint to the Executive Branch.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii/the-vesting-clause-common-interpretation/clause/35

Sorry if this was figured out prior. But I don't think Q's talking about preventing the D majority of the house if he's talking about what to do if it fails (quorum), and what "vested auth" the President has with regard to this. So far it seems he can't do anything. I guess this is just a long way of backing up your post. Was hoping for something else.