Skip to main content

View Diary: Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Simply semantics (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jimreyn, lastlegslaststand, divitius

    You might have a point if one were writing a legal brief, but this is a opinion piece, and brief at that.
     Please don't try and interject sexist accusations into this thread when you know darn good and well that is the historical name inferred upon "congrecritters" (sl). Would you prefer "congressperson" instead? That sounds so dry and non-organic.
    As far as your opinion as to whether or not state's are allowed or disallowed, under the U.S. Constitution the right to recall U.S. Senators, I believe your argument is flawed and incongruous of the U.S. Constitution, not to mention illogical.
    Here's why: For one thing the Constitution only sets terms of office for Senators, and says absolutely nothing about their right to serve the full length. On the contrary, as part of the checks and balances built into the Bill of Rights, The Constitution and the Deceleration of Independence have much to say about the removal of unsatisfactory Government, even by force if necessary (try the 2nd amendment).
    Without delving much into Jeffersonian law, it only takes one state's legislates to bring articles of impeachment against any members of Congress or POTUS. From the high number of your uid, I guess you weren't around this site in late '05 when it was all on fire  about impeaching shrub. I believe the battle cry was "It only takes one State"!
    Anyway it will be interesting to see how this Montana recall plays out and if it will help generate similar action in the remaining 49.

    My "Nature" is my Religion

    by winchelenator on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 08:11:21 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Convoluted logic. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Airpower, wilderness voice
      Please don't try and interject sexist accusations into this thread when you know darn good and well that is the historical name inferred upon "congrecritters" (sl). Would you prefer "congressperson" instead? That sounds so dry and non-organic.

      "Congressperson" works. Or "member of Congress."

      And the "sexist accusations" will stop when the sexist language stops. If the diarist would like to stop being accused of using sexist language, the clear remedy is to change the way he speaks and start using inclusive language.

      Here's why: For one thing the Constitution only sets terms of office for Senators, and says absolutely nothing about their right to serve the full length.

      That's some pretty convoluted logic... and, again, that logic would not just allow for voter recalls, but for the state government to call back a Senator for any reason. Under this logic, the government of Oklahoma could pass a law allowing the state's governor or Republican central committee to recall their Senator at any time if he or she voted in a way they disapproved of.

      On the contrary, as part of the checks and balances built into the Bill of Rights, The Constitution and the Deceleration of Independence have much to say about the removal of unsatisfactory Government, even by force if necessary (try the 2nd amendment).

      Not one of those documents says anything about the people having the ability to recall U.S. Senators. But the Constitution does provide for a means of removing and replacing an unsatisfactory government. You get to replace unsatisfactory Senators every six years, unsatisfactory Presidents every four, and unsatisfactory Representatives every two. If you disagree with these Senators' votes, I recommend working to replace them when they're up for reelection.

      Without delving much into Jeffersonian law, it only takes one state's legislates to bring articles of impeachment against any members of Congress or POTUS.

      Oh? Please indicate exactly in which article, section, and line of the Constitution you find those particular provisions.

      And please also indicate exactly how you expect said "articles of impeachment" to succeed, when the Constitution gives the House the sole power to impeach, and the Senate the sole power to convict—and these are the exact same bodies in which majorities voted for the provisions you think they should be impeached over.

      This is a quixotic and pointless effort, a complete waste of resources on a quest that would, even if "successful" in getting the majority of Montanans to vote for recall, be immediately struck down by the courts as not permitted by the Constitution.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 09:29:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  reply (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scorpiorising
        Oh? Please indicate exactly in which article, section, and line of the Constitution you find those particular provisions.
        If you go here and start reading, that will get you get you started.
         Like I said, the subject of state's rights pertaining to removal of public officials from office have been covered quite extensively on this site in the past and the general conscience then as it is now was it was doable.
         Sure, it would be comfort food for the soul if we could actually rely on the democratic process to sooth our future worries, but alas that is a axiom of the past that is woefully missed, and most likely will never be apparent again.
        It's apparent now that this bill was written for the MIC in attempt to generate more monetary opportunities for the private sector, good for them, bad for the rest of us. It's not so much the use of this bill that frightens the people but the misuse of it that is a little discerning to say the least.

        My "Nature" is my Religion

        by winchelenator on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 12:29:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nothing in that link... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wilderness voice

          ...actually changes what is written in the US Constitution - which is that the House is the only body that can impeach, and the Senate the only body that can try impeachment cases.

          Nor does it change what is written in the Constitution about the terms of US Senators and Representatives.

          Had the founders of the country wanted the people or state legislatures to be able to recall Representatives and Senators, it would appear in the Constitution somewhere.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 06:40:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You can lead a horse to water...... (0+ / 0-)

            .....but you can't make them drink.

            My "Nature" is my Religion

            by winchelenator on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 10:07:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So where is it in the Constitution? (0+ / 0-)

              Transcripts of debates from the Constitutional Convention are nice, but they aren't legally binding. The text of the Constitution itself is, and it clearly delineates the process: the House, and only the House, can impeach, and the Senate, and only the Senate can try impeachment cases.

              It's nice that you posted a proverb instead of actually supporting your argument with relevant evidence sufficient to demonstrate your case, but that doesn't mean that it actually did anything to help your claim.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 03:20:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site