Educate-Yourself
The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester for Approving Treasonous NDAA Military Detention

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/montananslaunchrecallofsenators25dec11.shtml
December 25, 2011

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester for Approving Treasonous NDAA Military Detention (Dec. 29, 2011)

Forwad courtesy of Bruce Licher

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate
Ralph Lopez Special to Salem-News.com

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december252011/ndaa-recall.php

Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions.
Salem-News.com

(HELENA) - Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:

"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:

"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:

"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."

Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens. Rhodes said:

"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."

Two Medals of Honor - Marine Gen. Smedley Butler

Rhodes noted that:

"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Time to fight. "

Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."

Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.

Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:

" today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA:

”This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”

And in a New York Times op-ed piece by two retired four-star U.S. Marine generals, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, Krulak and Hoar said that "Due process would be a thing of the past."

Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions. A number of Facebook pages appeared after the passage of the bill from locations across the country.

References:

Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA"

http://www.facebook.com/...

"Recalling Senators and Congressmen"
http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/...

"How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen"
http://recallthetraitors.blogspot.com/...

Special thanks to Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recalls-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas-US-Senate


UPDATE 12/26/2011:

This is from a statement from Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers regarding Republican Denny Rehberg as a target of recall, who also voted for NDAA.

Here in Montana, while we will go after all three violators of the Bill of Rights, I will place special emphasis and "focus of effort" on Denny Rehberg, since he is so fond of wrapping himself in the flag and claiming to be defending the Constitution while his votes do the exact opposite. In that sense, Rehberg is much like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two Republicans who, right along with Carl Levin and Joseph Lieberman, are leading a sustained and relentless assault on our Bill of Rights.

Disclaimer: I am now a volunteer press contact for this campaign.

From the press release:

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:

"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:

1. "The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens: "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

2. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

3. Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

4. The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense.

5. Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act reads in substance: "Congress affirms that the authority of the President to detain ...A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda...or associated forces...including any person who has...directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces...The disposition of a person...may include...Detention...without trial until the end of the hostilities..."

6. “Substantial support” of an “associated force” may imply citizens engaged in innocuous, First Amendment activities. Direct support of such hostilities in aid of enemy forces may be construed as free speech opposition to U.S. government policies, aid to civilians, or acts of civil disobedience.

7. Section 1021 reads: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law." But "existing law" may be construed to refer to Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the government's claim of authority to hold Americans arrested on American soil indefinitely.

8. Thus Senators Bacus, Tester, and Congressman Rehberg who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have violated his Oath of Office to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution which guarantees all citizens the right to a jury trial "In all criminal prosecutions."

Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens. Rhodes said:

"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."

Rhodes noted that:

"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." Time to fight. "

Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."

Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.

Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:

" today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA:

”This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”

And in a New York Times op-ed piece by two retired four-star U.S. Marine generals, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, Krulak and Hoar said that "Due process would be a thing of the past."

Rep. Justin Amash warned the NDAA was“carefully crafted to mislead the public,” The deceptions in the language of the NDAA, intended to allow defenders to argue that the provisions do not apply to American citizens, center around some of the wording in Sections 1021 and 1022. Rep. Tom McClintock opposed the bill on the House floor and said in a speech:

[The NDAA] specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with “substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any ‘associated forces’” — whatever that means.

Would “substantial support” of an “associated force,” mean linking a web-site to a web-site that links to a web-site affiliated with al-Qaeda? We don’t know.

And Section 1022 "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS" states:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

However, although the section says it is not “required” that US citizens be held in military detention, it is nevertheless “allowed.” Most worrisome, all accusations rest solely on the word of the government, with no witnesses, evidence, or any other form of due process available when the government is either wrong or lying.

Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions. A number of Facebook pages appeared after the passage of the bill from locations across the country.

References:

Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA"
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Recall-Every-Congressman-Who-Voted-for-the-NDAA/248343955227401?sk=info

"Recalling Senators and Congressmen" (PDF)
http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/pdfs/Recalling U.S. Senators and Congressmen.pdf

"How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen"
http://recallthetraitors.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-to-recall-us-senators-and.html

Comment Preferences

102 comments

Tip Jar by Ralph Lopez, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 01:33:01 PM PST (59+ / 0-)
while there is plenty to be dissatisfied with by wilderness voice, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 01:47:01 PM PST (17+ / 0-)
Agreed. by Marjmar, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 01:58:40 PM PST (3+ / 0-)
So let me see if I have this right by glitterscale, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 09:46:23 AM PST (8+ / 0-)
They are not Democrats, JFK was a Democrat by Ralph Lopez, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:11:12 PM PST (12+ / 0-)
JFK, whose FBI under J. Edgar Hoover... by JamesGG, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:24:46 PM PST (8+ / 0-)
every time this lie... by kalmoth, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:42:13 PM PST (6+ / 0-)
Tester's not so bad by J Orygun, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 10:51:09 PM PST (7+ / 0-)
Baucus is the worst by Winston Sm1th, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 12:51:36 AM PST (9+ / 0-)
Republican Primary is a distraction by Colleen Fernald, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 10:32:33 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
Obama is "Bush Doctrine" on steroids re: Libya by Colleen Fernald, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 10:29:44 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
He invaded without NATO agreement by wader, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 08:26:34 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
You seem to have a problem by wader, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 08:24:15 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
I think the automatic team-ism gets old by Crider, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 04:54:24 PM PST (23+ / 0-)
Thank you for that! by Colleen Fernald, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:32:29 PM PST (5+ / 0-)
Not attack, challenge them by Colleen Fernald, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:01:42 PM PST (4+ / 0-)
then why are you running as third party? n/t by wilderness voice, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 08:58:32 AM PST (1+ / 0-)
I am running as an ultra progressive DEMOCRAT by Colleen Fernald, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 10:40:56 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
I am no scholar by tobendaro, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 06:08:35 PM PST (12+ / 0-)
certainly aren't by winchelenator, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 07:13:30 PM PST (1+ / 0-)
certainly aren't by winchelenator, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 07:19:52 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
We need a court case asap by racetoinfinity, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 12:39:55 AM PST (1+ / 0-)
So the label is more important than the vote? by AmericanAnt, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 06:24:31 PM PST (9+ / 0-)
"'Tis not an "attack." by hannah, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 01:24:07 AM PST (4+ / 0-)
Recall Elections Waste Resources by BandarBush, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 06:54:58 AM PST (1+ / 0-)
The bill passed 86-14 by Zifnab, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 07:44:15 AM PST (2+ / 0-)
they have a "D" next to their name by dan667, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 08:45:33 AM PST (3+ / 0-)
thank you! how will this diarist feel if these by edrie, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 01:59:45 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
WHile the Senators in question should be defeated by phillies, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 01:56:36 PM PST (3+ / 0-)
ummmm... by JamesGG, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 02:00:47 PM PST (9+ / 0-)
Simply semantics by winchelenator, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 08:11:21 PM PST (3+ / 0-)
Convoluted logic. by JamesGG, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 09:29:22 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
reply by winchelenator, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 12:29:53 AM PST (1+ / 0-)
Nothing in that link... by JamesGG, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 06:40:00 AM PST (1+ / 0-)
You can lead a horse to water...... by winchelenator, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 10:07:38 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
So where is it in the Constitution? by JamesGG, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 03:20:47 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
sexist language by lannocc, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 06:16:39 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
Does the word "human" imply one gender? by JamesGG, Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:24:56 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
Funny how that works by Utahrd, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 02:02:00 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
What's Even Funnier Is by OnlyWords, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 02:19:40 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
It's a laugh and a half that Ralph is a tenther. by Rich in PA, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:27:15 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
No United States Senator has ever been by SquirrelWhisperer, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 02:11:37 PM PST (8+ / 0-)
Not Re-call; incarceration for Treason by Colleen Fernald, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:05:33 PM PST (4+ / 0-)
kindly speak for yourself... by kalmoth, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:45:35 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
FYI by winchelenator, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 08:15:25 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
that's what the "recommend" button is for, no? n/t by kalmoth, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 09:26:15 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
You got it, I used it, bravo! N/T by winchelenator, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 10:49:12 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
Thanks, wonder how many more... by Colleen Fernald, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 10:56:55 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
I always do by Colleen Fernald, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 10:48:01 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
Speak for myself by Colleen Fernald, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 10:58:31 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
oh really? by kalmoth, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 11:48:18 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
The Constitution DOES prohibit recall by mph2005, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 02:53:17 PM PST (9+ / 0-)
Yep. This. by JamesGG, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:27:42 PM PST (4+ / 0-)
You are contradicting yourself by Ralph Lopez, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:57:07 PM PST (4+ / 0-)
You completely misread the Constitution. by JamesGG, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 04:59:53 PM PST (3+ / 0-)
Misread by winchelenator, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 08:51:38 PM PST (1+ / 0-)
Some brilliant points there Ralph by scorpiorising, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 08:58:21 AM PST (1+ / 0-)
Nowhere... by winchelenator, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 08:20:37 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
Recall should be possible; Calif should do the by jim d, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:01:30 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
it's not whether or not recalls will succeed by aliasalias, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:34:13 PM PST (13+ / 0-)
It's not even about "success" versus "failure." by JamesGG, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:41:37 PM PST (6+ / 0-)
okay good buddy since I assume you are by Ralph Lopez, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 04:17:58 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
So what makes you think a recall election.... by JamesGG, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:07:41 PM PST (4+ / 0-)
Sherrod Brown voted for military detention of by Ralph Lopez, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:35:51 PM PST (1+ / 0-)
What makes you think Paul Hackett... by JamesGG, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:37:53 PM PST (1+ / 0-)
Recalls are not only... by winchelenator, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 09:00:07 PM PST (1+ / 0-)
Sorry: I can't get behind this recall by eztempo, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:42:54 PM PST (4+ / 0-)
Ok what propitious ground? n/t by jim d, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 07:33:56 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
The courts, for one. n/t by eztempo, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 08:32:43 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
Tip'd Rec'd, tweeted. by War on Error, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 04:22:05 PM PST (12+ / 0-)
Signing Document by blogokvetsch, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:00:58 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
It's not signed yet, so no. n/t by kalmoth, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:44:32 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
Good grief. by Airpower, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 06:20:08 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
Bad law, bad logic by Ralph Lopez, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 07:55:30 PM PST (1+ / 0-)
Same decision by Airpower, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 11:23:11 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
An Important Educational Action. by Justina, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 07:04:35 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
The problem goes deeper than the 2 senator's votes by BeeDeeS, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 08:17:26 PM PST (5+ / 0-)
Exactly right. There is now a young man Tarek by Ralph Lopez, Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 10:31:10 PM PST (7+ / 0-)
you should do a diary on this. excellent by lastlegslaststand, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 01:55:00 AM PST (1+ / 0-)
Republicans did not complain when Bush by Mulkum, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 12:31:54 AM PST (1+ / 0-)
Thank you by OLISTERHOSEN, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 03:01:33 AM PST (3+ / 0-)
Why did Rehberg get a pass? by touchstone033, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 09:31:31 AM PST (2+ / 0-)
He didn't get a pass, see update... by Ralph Lopez, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 02:00:14 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
WI can recall senators!!! by glitterscale, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 09:38:31 AM PST (1+ / 0-)
state senators by wilderness voice, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 12:17:28 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
No, they can't recall US Senators. by JamesGG, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 03:14:25 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
Oregon can Recall Senators-But by Fredamae, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 09:56:32 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
Oathkeepers by gramma61, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 04:08:06 PM PST (1+ / 0-)
The SPLC by Loge, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 08:31:30 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
Right the SPLC slammed Oathkeepers by Ralph Lopez, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 11:26:33 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
i can imagine that the SPLC by Loge, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 11:58:44 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
And I've already explained this to you by Ralph Lopez, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 12:30:32 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
existing law by Loge, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 01:14:41 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
didn't read it. n/t by Ralph Lopez, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 02:32:11 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
there are a lot of things you haven't read n/t by Loge, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 04:33:17 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
Seems the final version is not as bad by Artemis Eneldo, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 11:32:24 PM PST (2+ / 0-)
It is nearly as bad. by cville townie, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 08:57:36 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
Via AMERICANS AGAINST TEA PARTY: "Everybody calm.. by Artemis Eneldo, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 11:35:12 PM PST (1+ / 0-)
Disinfo artists working hard by Ralph Lopez, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 11:23:18 AM PST (0+ / 0-)
Join us at the American Freedom Campaign to discus by Artemis Eneldo, Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 11:41:09 PM PST (0+ / 0-)
The issue HAS reached federal courts. by Michael Bauser, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 12:31:47 PM PST (1+ / 0-)
well I'll be... by Ralph Lopez, Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 02:08:53 PM PST (1+ / 0-)

 

***

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1048711/44387771#c95?mode=alone;showrate=1#c95

The issue HAS reached federal courts. (1+ / 0-)

The District Court (for the District of Idaho) killed the recall petition against Frank Church in 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

So, propaganda FAIL there, Mister "press contact."

"Make it empathic! VOTE! Straight Democratic!" -- The 2006 MI-14 slate card

by Michael Bauser on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 12:31:47 PM PST

well I'll be... (1+ / 0-)

okay so it has. But the reasoning was specious, based on the argument that a recall law would change the "qualifications" for being a senator, prohibited by the Constitution. The same clause also prohibits unilaterally changing the term length of office. Upon these two term limits was struck down, and this is the case law they are attempting to apply to recalls.

"Qualifications" in the Constitution refer to "age, residency, and inhabitancy" requirements. To say the introduction of a Tenth Amendment power, which requires "affirmative prohibition" to be declared unconstitutional, which cuts short a specific term based on narrow and grave grounds, is the same as changing a term or a qualification is a stretch. One, a recall does not change the term. The next guy serves the same length term. Two, a recall is not a change in qualification, reasoning that judge must have made while snorting from the silver flask in the drawer.

It's too bad the judges who are sticklers to the Constitution who talk about "qualifications" and "terms," forget about that part that says "right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."

Thus regardless of court, the ruling is vulnerable. All rulings, such as those in the war on terror, are subject to the political climate, and judges and courts are sending kids like Tarek Mehanna away for life even after admitting to attempted entrapment, which should have gotten the case dismissed, as a result of the political climate. (Tarek refused saying his religion prohibited him from killing civilians). Let's see 20 or 30 states with people lined up at the state houses and courts screaming rude things, and see what the judges say then.

I think what people are afraid of with recall is it will turn into a popularity contest. The solution is to carefully craft recall legislation so that it is narrowly and wisely crafted, requiring specific and grave grounds. Montana's are: "physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses."

You shouldn't be able to be recalled because of an unpopular vote on the death penalty or Obamacare. You should be for clearly violating your oath to uphold the Constitution in a tangible and specific way.

by Ralph Lopez on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 02:08:53 PM PST

[ Parent ]

***

Ralph Lopez's Profile

You can help support Ralph's writing, research, and anti-war work here.

Home Page: http://ralphlopezworld.com

Diaries published: 484 (1 day since last diary on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:16 PM PST)

Comments posted: 2212 (1 day since last comment on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 04:52 PM PST)

Diary frequency: frequent

Comment frequency: frequent

Total Recommends: 16973

Total Comment Ratings: 8623

Most Recommended Diary: Welcome to Boston, Mr. Rumsfeld. You Are Under Arrest., 375 comments, 881 recommends

People Following Ralph Lopez: 99
Ralph Lopez's Most Frequent Tags:

Afghanistan (119)
Obama (96)
Barack Obama (84)
George W. Bush (81)
Impeach (77)

impeachment (75)
Dick Cheney (46)
Bush (40)
torture (40)
Recommended (31)

Ralph Lopez's Most Recent Diaries:
Combating the Distortions Over NDAA Military Detentions, Does This Mean You? You'd Better Believe It
by Ralph Lopez
Comment Count 31 comments on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:16 PM PST with 9 Recommends
What the "Enemy Combatant" Designation Really Means: More Due Process, Not Less.
by Ralph Lopez
Comment Count 5 comments on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:27 PM PST with 6 Recommends
Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate
by Ralph Lopez
Comment Count 102 comments on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 01:33 PM PST with 56 Recommends
Never-ending War: R.I.P. Brian Arredondo. By Cindy Sheehan.
by Ralph Lopez
Comment Count 4 comments on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 12:26 AM PST with 14 Recommends
Are Pro-NDAA Lawmakers for Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Actually Guilty of "Treason?"
by Ralph Lopez
Comment Count 22 comments on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:11 PM PST with 6 Recommends
I Talked With an Algerian Last Night About NDAA, He Said Expect People to Start Disappearing

by Ralph Lopez



 



Free Newsletter

Email Address:


Join the Educate-Yourself Discussion Forum

All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.