Skip to main content


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"

"Recalling Senators and Congressmen" (PDF)

"How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen"

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  while there is plenty to be dissatisfied with (17+ / 0-)

    these are Democratic senators in a state not known for its progressivism.  Surely there is a better use of your time than to attack them.

    Scientific Materialism debunked here

    by wilderness voice on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 01:47:01 PM PST

    •  Agreed. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DEMonrat ankle biter, eztempo, marykk

      ...hence my tip, but not a rec.

      "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

      by Marjmar on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 01:58:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So let me see if I have this right (8+ / 0-)

        They voted to completely eviscerate the constitution. No habeaus, no trial, total isolation, military compounds, no media. Just a total blackout of who you might be or who might care about you. And if they decide tomorrow that dKos is a terrorist place, they could put all 200,000 + of us not just in Gitmo, but render us to someplace that condones torture. And who would be left to fight for you/us?

        But all that doesn't matter because they have the magic "d" after their names?

        Congress is at 9% approval rating - within the +/- of making herpes more popular than congress! - Webranding

        by glitterscale on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 09:46:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  They are not Democrats, JFK was a Democrat (12+ / 0-)

      They are DINO.  Obama is the third Bush administration.

    •  I think the automatic team-ism gets old (23+ / 0-)

      Real old. If any 'Democrat' doesn't support habeas corpus, then fuck 'em. They don't support me — or you either.

    •  Not attack, challenge them (4+ / 0-)

      This is why we have Primaries.

      I want to add California to that list.

      Thank you,

      Colleen Fernald

      California's Constitutional Candidate for PEACE!

      UNITED States Senate 2012
      Democratic Primary

      It's not about me; it's about YOU; it's The People's seat.

      How do YOU want to be served?

      What do YOU want?

      Send your top issues 5: What's working? Not working? Almost working; how can we fix it?

      Let's co-create our ideal platform; for our communities, California, our Nation, and all others.

      www.campaignforpeace.org
      www.songsforaceasefire.org

      •  then why are you running as third party? n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader

        Scientific Materialism debunked here

        by wilderness voice on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 08:58:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am running as an ultra progressive DEMOCRAT (0+ / 0-)

          Who will swear an oath, to uphold my oath to protect and defend the Constitution, from enemies foreign AND domestic. Hence Constitutional Candidate for PEACE!

          How did you miss the last line - Democratic Primary.

          I am choosing to work to clean up this party, rather than fight, or join the others.

          It's not a matter of which "team" wins; it's who has the best plan to get our Constitution adhered to, and return of our quality of life; while restoring our local, American economies.

          I'd like to see all Democrats step up to that; wouldn't you?

          I'm not going to fight my party; I am occupying it.

          •  "Constitution" = Book of Revelation/Mystery Cult (0+ / 0-)

            At 4300 words, the Constitution is not an all inclusive list of the federal governments power and never was, especially when you consider most of it is rules of order and the calendar.  Your local fishing and trapping regulations are probably longer.

            And the "strict constructionists" are themselves usually the corporate shills looking to curtail individual rights by noting correctly that there is no "right to privacy" so therefore there is none.

            But they get away with this by reducing the Constitution to a weird mystery cult with a special emphasis on involving real religious cultists who will bring their special brand of crazy to argument, thus sucking the air out of the room for normal people.  

            There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

            by bernardpliers on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 09:38:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I am no scholar (12+ / 0-)

      nor am I a lawyer but I do think this is about something bigger than the recall of senators.  The public needs to be informed of exactly what is happening and this will help get this out in front of the general populace.  The ultimate goal may be a Supreme Court case.  Imagine the justices ruling against the Sixth amendment.  Would slumbering citizens awaken then?   I welcome any defense against any perpetrator at this point.

      And she's good at appearing sane, I just want you to know. Winwood/Capaldi

      by tobendaro on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 06:08:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  certainly aren't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Colleen Fernald

        This is (NDAA) about the sixth amendment:

        Amendment VI

        In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

        Please try to focus here.

        My "Nature" is my Religion

        by winchelenator on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 07:13:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  certainly aren't (0+ / 0-)

        This (NDAA) is about and all over the sixth:

        Amendment VI

        In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

        Please try and pay attention.

        My "Nature" is my Religion

        by winchelenator on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 07:19:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  We need a court case asap (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tobendaro

        We need a court case or more than one challenging different infringements of the Constitution by the DFAA and The Patriot Act asap even unto the right-wing SCOTUS.  How can they not defend the amendments and articles without a revolt?

        "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is." - Donovan

        by racetoinfinity on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 12:39:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  So the label is more important than the vote? (9+ / 0-)

      They may be Democrats, but given that this law seems to my untutored eye to be clearly unconstitutional, I don't see any problem with recalling them for breach of oath.

      Presumably if this happens to a few members of Congress it might put the fear of God into the rest, spreading the benefit well beyond Montana.

    •  "'Tis not an "attack." (4+ / 0-)

      'Tis a correction or, if you prefer, an intervention. 'Tis what is called for in the face of abuse. It makes no difference whether the abuse is illegal or perpetrated under cover of law, except for the fact that abuse under cover of law undermines justice itself.
      That's not new.  When slavery was declared legal, the law was used to deprive some humans of their rights. Depriving all humans equally of their right to just treatment is not better.
      Equality does not equate nor guarantee justice.

      People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

      by hannah on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 01:24:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Recall Elections Waste Resources (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ed in Montana

      Lawyer and life-long ACLUer here - Indefinite detention is unquestionably unconstitutional, however, I disagree with this and just about every other attempt to recall elected officials. This is NOT the way to deal with unconstitutional or just plain stupid laws. We have courts who hold the responsibility of declaring laws unconstitutional. If you don't like a law that affects you, you can seek an injunction barring its enforcement. Recall elections cost a lot of money and upend stability in government. They are petty, short-sited, misguided attempts to undo the last election, wasting resources which should be spent on the coming election. Elections have consequence - if a guy wins the elections, that's the ball game, that was your opportunity. If you disagree with the guy/gal, by all means write letters, show up to his/her speaking engagements and protest, but, most importantly, organize against that politician for the *next* cycle. This is precisely why the framers gave us 2 and 6 year terms - to give our politicians some cover to make tough decisions during their terms, while still allowing the constituency the opportunity to voice displeasure during the next election. However, if our politicians constantly face the threat of recall or impeachment for a vote with which their constituency disagrees, then we can never expect courage from any of them. And I think we can all agree there's a serious deficit of courage in D.C.

      Udall for Senate in '08!

      by BandarBush on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 06:54:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The bill passed 86-14 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nicolemm, Colleen Fernald

      This isn't about Democrats or Republicans when you've got margins so big.  Even the 14 no votes were a pretty mixed bag.

      I mean, I recognize the value of a Democratic Senate in the aggregate.  But Baucus was instrumental in hamstringing ACA legislation and Tester has been something of a wild card in general.  And now this shit?

      What happened to the better part of more, better Democrats?  At some point, you've got to start putting a foot down and making people pay a political price (or, at least, fear paying a political price) for this kind of asshattery.

    •  they have a "D" next to their name (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nicolemm, Colleen Fernald, tikkun

      so what ever they do is acceptable?  That is about the worst argument I have ever heard.  If any Senator does crap like this they should feel the wrath of US Citizens.  End of Story.

    •  thank you! how will this diarist feel if these (0+ / 0-)

      particuar senators are the ones who tip the scales into republican hands?

      ah, what fools some mortals be!  (sorry for the edit, will...)

      Is GlowNZ back yet?

      by edrie on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 01:59:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  WHile the Senators in question should be defeated (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Ed in Montana, scorpiorising

    the question of recalling Congressmen has been litigated, repeatedly, and has always failed.

    It founders on the sole power of each house of Congress to be the judge of its members.

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 01:56:36 PM PST

  •  ummmm... (9+ / 0-)
    the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen

    Not really, no.

    The Constitution sets out the lengths of the terms for members of Congress. Each Senator is elected to a six-year term, unless he or she dies in office, resigns, or is expelled from the Senate.

    The Constitution sets out the length of a Senator's term at six years, and no state government has the power to shorten a Senator's term in office; Only the rest of the U.S. Senate, the Senator him- or herself, or the icy cold hand of death can do that.

    Regardless of what the state government says, if a Senator's term has not yet expired, he or she remains Senator; he or she serves a fixed term in office, not at the pleasure of state government or of the state's populace.

    State governments don't get to have any say in their state's Senate representation, except insofar as they administer the elections that initially put them in place and set out the means by which Senators who don't complete their terms by the processes laid out by the Constitution can be replaced.

    By your logic, a state could pass a law allowing the governor, the state legislature, or even one political party's executive committee, to remove a Senator from office before his or her term was up. After all, that is also not prohibited in the Constitution, and thus by your Tenth Amendment logic is "explicitly allowed."

    Oh, and Congress isn't just made up of men. There are women there too. Do not linguistically erase the many women in Congress by using sexist language like "Congressmen" to refer to generic members of Congress.

    "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 02:00:47 PM PST

    •  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 ]

    •  sexist language (0+ / 0-)
      Do not linguistically erase the many women in Congress by using sexist language like "Congressmen" to refer to generic members of Congress.

      Just give it up. :-P

      I suppose you also find the terms huMAN and woMAN sexist too? In fact, it might just be easier to call "man" something else than to change the historically correct usage of such "sexist" words.

      •  Does the word "human" imply one gender? (0+ / 0-)

        Is the word "woman" used to describe people generally, rather than just one specific gender?

        Which is simpler? To do a series of mental gymnastic moves in order to justify the use of gender-exclusionary language, or to start using gender-inclusive language?

        "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 Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:24:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Funny how that works (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, winchelenator

    Usually on this site, if you try to bring up the Tenth Amendment; you're considered to be a racist, a fascist or a teabagger.

    (Full disclosure:  I regularly violate the Tenth Amendment when I buy booze in Nevada, Idaho or Wyoming so I don't have to pay ripoff Utah State Monopoly prices.)

    •  What's Even Funnier Is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKSinSA, winchelenator

      Usually on this site, if you are a racist, fascist or teabigot, you get called-out for it, even if you try to hide behind the Tenth Amendment....

      I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

      60% of White-Americans voted for the TeaBigots in 2010. Yet, some Kossacks think Obama is the problem. I guess it's easier to blame Obama than it is to blame your momma

      by OnlyWords on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 02:19:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's a laugh and a half that Ralph is a tenther. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kalmoth, Airpower

      I understand seizing every advantage, but tentherism isn't progressive and it will bite you.

      But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

      by Rich in PA on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:27:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  No United States Senator has ever been (8+ / 0-)

    recalled successfully.  Whadda you gonna state as grounds and how do you like your chances of recalling these Democratic senators?  "Well, your honor, we just don't like the way they voted?"

  •  The Constitution DOES prohibit recall (9+ / 0-)

    In many different sections, the office of U.S. Senator is determined:

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

    No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

    No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

    All of these clauses trump any state law or state constitution.

    •  Yep. This. (4+ / 0-)

      The Constitution sets out the length of a Senator's term—six years.

      Not "six years, unless recalled."

      Not "six years, or as long as the people want him or her to serve."

      The only way a Senator's term can be shorter than six years is if he or she dies, resigns, or is expelled by his or her Senate colleagues.

      "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 03:27:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are contradicting yourself (4+ / 0-)

        It says in essence, "six years" unless expelled by other members.  It does not say "expulsion shall be the only avenue" or "The only way a Senator's term can be shorter than six years is if he or she dies, resigns, or is expelled by his or her Senate colleagues."

        You said that.

        What the Constitution does say is the powers not "prohibited"...are reserved to the States...or to the people.

        You can take this as the Founders saying this document is meant to put limits on the powers of the government, not the powers of the people, which go right up to and include the right of armed rebellion in the Declaration of Independence.

        It is absurd to conclude that the Founders intended for senators to be more accountable to other members than to constituents whom they represent.  

        Those who say you cannot recall senators doth protest too hard.  Reps. are up every two years.  Senators have always been a problem, but this bunch just trashed the integrity of a venerable institution the same as if they had turned  over desks and sprayed shaving cream on the walls.  As if "protect and defend" had no meaning whatsoever.  

        •  You completely misread the Constitution. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kalmoth, Airpower, wilderness voice
          It says in essence, "six years" unless expelled by other members.  It does not say "expulsion shall be the only avenue" or "The only way a Senator's term can be shorter than six years is if he or she dies, resigns, or is expelled by his or her Senate colleagues."

          It sets the length of the term, and sets out the conditions by which that term can be left incomplete. A Senator, when elected, gets a six-year term, except under certain conditions the Constitution sets out.

          What the Constitution does say is the powers not "prohibited"...are reserved to the States...or to the people.

          You missed a part there:

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          The length of a Senator's term is explicitly stated in the United States Constitution as being six years, and is thus a power delegated to the United States and not reserved to the states or the people.

          You can take this as the Founders saying this document is meant to put limits on the powers of the government, not the powers of the people, which go right up to and include the right of armed rebellion in the Declaration of Independence.

          The people who wrote the Constitution didn't really much like the idea of the "powers of the people" in general, and sure as hell didn't think the people had the right to armed rebellion against the United States government—as seen by the founders' leading the army against armed rebels during the Whiskey Rebellion.

          It is absurd to conclude that the Founders intended for senators to be more accountable to other members than to constituents whom they represent.

          In the Founders' Constitution, the members of the Senate weren't at all accountable to the constituents they represented. They were elected by state legislatures, not directly by the people.

          "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 04:59:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Misread (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ralph Lopez
            The people who wrote the Constitution didn't really much like the idea of the "powers of the people" in general, and sure as hell didn't think the people had the right to armed rebellion against the United States government—as seen by the founders' leading the army against armed rebels during the Whiskey Rebellion.

            Oh Really then why this,

            Second Amendment, Bill of Rights
            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

            and the this (I love this):

            When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

                He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
                He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
                He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
                He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
                He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
                He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
                He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
                He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
                He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
                He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
                He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
                He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
                He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
                For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
                For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
                For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
                For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
                For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
                For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
                For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
                For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
                For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
                He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
                He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
                He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
                He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
                He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

            In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

            Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

            We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor

            My "Nature" is my Religion

            by winchelenator on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 08:51:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Some brilliant points there Ralph (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Colleen Fernald

          and I agree completely. The people must assert their rights in the face of tyranny by elected officials. And this defense act is a form of tyranny.

    •  Nowhere... (0+ / 0-)

      ....in your post do you emulate your title..ugh, apparently I have been away from KOS too long and she has been overrun by zombies!

      My "Nature" is my Religion

      by winchelenator on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 08:20:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Recall should be possible; Calif should do the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, Colleen Fernald

    same. Anyone who voted for this potential police state ought to know how angry people are about this.

    If we can't; that is the epitome of an aristocratic hangover which needs to be changed..

    We don't live in a democracy . . . we live in a capitalist oligarchy, with some democratic representation…Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, or labor unions?… The capitalist oligarchy …were forced to accept them…Howard Zinn

    by jim d on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:01:30 PM PST

  •  it's not whether or not recalls will succeed (13+ / 0-)

    the effort is the message, and it needs to be loud.

    without the ants the rainforest dies

    by aliasalias on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 03:34:13 PM PST

    •  It's not even about "success" versus "failure." (6+ / 0-)

      There's a difference between putting in a valiant effort for something that is legally possible but politically unlikely, like a longshot candidate's campaign or a ballot issue that's not likely to make it, and wasting resources on an effort that even if "successful" in getting a recall on the ballot and getting a majority of Montanans to vote to recall their Senators would still be pretty swiftly struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

      If Montana progressives would like their state's Senate seats to be occupied by people who are more progressive than Max Baucus or Jon Tester, they should run someone in the Democratic primary when those Senators are up for reelection rather than tilt at the windmill of a recall election that quite literally couldn't possibly succeed in removing them from office.

      "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 03:41:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  okay good buddy since I assume you are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Justina, winchelenator

        against this fascist legislation as well, why don't you take charge  of a primary effort against the DINOs, it's easy to sit behind your computer and tell everyone else how best to make change while you're munching on your Doritos and Cheeze Whiz.  I'll stick with the recall effort and win or lose, we'll have Tester and Baucus nice and softened up for your man/woman at election time.

        Talk about wasting effort of valiant Montanans.  You mean the way Paul Hackett the Iraq Vet was led on in the primary by the Democratic establishment in Ohio until they decided to stab him in the back with Sherrod Brown?  Thinking you can win a primary when your hacks are in charge is what is wasting valiant peoples' time.

        We'll just get it on the ballot and what the people of the state say.

        •  So what makes you think a recall election.... (4+ / 0-)

          ...would have any different results from a primary election, in terms of "party hacks"? It's about putting people on the ballot and seeing who the people prefer. What part of a primary  election do you think the "party hacks" would control that they couldn't control in a recall?

          And I'd hardly describe Sherrod Brown, one of the most progressive members of the Senate and someone who's fighting for the 99%, as a "stab in the back."

          "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 05:07:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sherrod Brown voted for military detention of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            winchelenator

            Americans in NDAA too.  You call that "fighting for the 99%?"  I doubt you know what that means.

            Brown should be recalled too.  Here are the only ones who didn't vote yes:

            NAYs ---13
            Cardin (D-MD)
            Coburn (R-OK)
            Crapo (R-ID)
            DeMint (R-SC)
            Durbin (D-IL)
                Franken (D-MN)
            Harkin (D-IA)
            Lee (R-UT)
            Merkley (D-OR)
            Paul (R-KY)

            •  What makes you think Paul Hackett... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kalmoth

              ...wouldn't have voted "yes"?

              Has he taken a public position on the bill?

              "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 05:37:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Recalls are not only... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Colleen Fernald

        ....about progressives. They encompass the entire spectrum of political ideologies.

        My "Nature" is my Religion

        by winchelenator on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 09:00:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry: I can't get behind this recall (4+ / 0-)

    I would like for the policy & (unConstitutional) law of "disappearing" presidential-designated enemies here in the U.S. wiped off the books and thoroughly vilified and rejected by The People.  However, I don't believe recalling and removing two Democratic Senators from a State (Montana) unlikely to return two Democrats in their place -- much more likely to send two hidebound conservative militia-sympathizers -- is the way to go about getting rid of a bad law and policy.

    Democrats will need a majority in the Senate in order to reverse the NDAA provision that is a direct assault on our Bill of Rights.  Regardless of Tester and Baucus' votes on the bill, we'll need a Democratic Majority Leader in order to move a bill that will reverse this evil policy.  Replacing two Democrats with Republicans could tip the majority to Mitch McConnell, and will just make the goal that much more distant in any case.  And make no mistake:  a credible recall effort will result in more Republicans in the Senate.

    Even if Baucus and Tester beat back this recall attempt, they'll likely be weakened, electorally, because of the campaign against them by their otherwise natural allies.  That'll certainly invite strong candidates with loads of national money coming into the State next cycle.  Not a good scenario.

    I understand and sympathize with the anger and betrayal you feel, Ralph.  But I'd point to a couple of Sun Tzu's principles of war: "If the laws of war do not indicate victory, it is appropriate not to do battle...." and "When colonels are angry and obstreperous and fight on their own out of spite when they meet opponents, and the generals do not know their abilities, they crumble."

    I don't see a recall effort against two sitting Democratic Senators in Montana advancing the national cause in the long run.  There is more propitious ground on which to fight this fight.

  •  Tip'd Rec'd, tweeted. (12+ / 0-)

    I disagree with the above commentators that put this effort down.

    It's not about winning this one, imo.

    It's about keeping NDAA IN THE NEWS and in people's faces.

    If this effort helps raise the sheeple's ire, it will have served its purpose, imo.

    Thank you, Ralph.  

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 04:22:05 PM PST

  •  Signing Document (0+ / 0-)

    I heard that when Prez Obama was going to sign the NDAA he was also going to present a signing document or letter which, perhaps, was going to state his objection to the detention policy, indicating that he would not be bound by the law. Does anyone have the text of said document?

    the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror... FDR first inaugural address

    by blogokvetsch on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 05:00:58 PM PST

  •  Good grief. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JamesGG, RandySF

    Here we go again.  The U. S. Supreme Court has already addressed this issue in U.S. v. Thornton (1995) when it ruled term limits unconstitutional.  

    The U. S. Constitution reserves for this issue for itself by stating each senator shall be elected to a six-year term.  There are no exceptions.  The only ways for a senator to leave are death, retirement, resignation, expulsion, defeat at the polls, or chosing not to run again.

    As for the 10th Amendment in general, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in 1965 that the 10th Amendment applies only those those rights in existence at the time of ratification.  One example is the right to travel between states.

    •  Bad law, bad logic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scorpiorising

      Term limits are like taking a meat axe where a surgeon's scalpel is required.  Two different issues.

      The Supreme Court also ruled that criminal suspects had to be read their Miranda Rights.  It ruled a lot of things that have since been overturned.

      •  Same decision (0+ / 0-)

        The U.S. Supreme Court specifically cited the recall of members of Congress as unconstitutional for the same reasons that a statue limiting the number of times one person can be elected to Congress is unconstutiotnal.  

        U.S. v. Thornton is unlikely to be overturned.  It is only a 16-year old decision.  You are wasting your time with this and holding out false hope to people who don't know any better.

        I'm certainly not a fan of this portion of the NDAA, nor am I a fan of Senator Bachus and would like to see him replaced with a better Democrat.  The way to do that is through a primary challenge when he's up for reelection, should he decide to run for another term.  Paging Gov. Schweitzer.  

  •  An Important Educational Action. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JuliaWilliams, Colleen Fernald

    No, this recall campaign may not ultimately succeed, but it could be an important vehicle for educating the public about the horrible evisceration of the Bill of Rights which has taken place,  with the support and approval of many calling themselves Democrats.

    It may also generate sufficient movement in the population to allow these two to be defeated by more progressive candidates in the next primary election.  We need better Democrats;  this is a step in the right direction.

    Time to put the fear of an angry electorate back into our Congressional Representatives and Senators, hopefully this recall operation will help to do that.  Good going, Ralph.

    Convict Bush, Cheney and their torture cabal. Support universal health care,unions, WikiLeaks and Occupy Wall Street! Time for a totally new, democratic economic system. Turn the corporations into worker cooperatives!

    by Justina on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 07:04:35 PM PST

  •  The problem goes deeper than the 2 senator's votes (5+ / 0-)

    For over 10 years, we have had the Patriot Act, and follow up acts adding more surveillance, dispensing with liberties,overriding "sunset " provisions to extend the laws indefinitely and electronic monitoring and invasion of homes privacy of citizens on officials sayso without probable cause.

            The situation is there is a generalized sentiment to keep adding controls and stripping rights from citizens.  Not doing so is to be "soft" on terror, which means a bogeyman is used as an excuse to control and reduce the value and worth of citizenship.  Both Senators as well as plenty of others follow this course of action.

            Why didn't the Senate demand the provisions to allow detention without trial be stripped from the bill?  If this happens (the detention without trial) how does a citizen petition for redress?  What if the present Supreme Court simply affirms this dreadful Act?  then there is no recourse if a citizen at the direction of the President or military is snatched and jailed somewhere.

           This is the real George Orwell  scenario, we are now going down that slippery slope and have little to brag about as far as how many "rights" we have compared to some supposed non civil rights respecting states.  As we have seen with Occupy, rights are there unless they get exercized and then they disappear.

             What is this provision useful for, unless it is to beat back opposition to a very unpopular act, like say an invasion of Iran, another war of choice like that of Iraq, Vietnam etc, that left nothing but bloody ruin and debt and nothing else in its wake.  Why is it necessary to jail without trial Americans unless there is a fear of open trial and revealing evidence in court that would embarrass and reduce support for an Administration and
    its policies, a military solution taken by stealth and misinformation as we have had several times now in the past forty years.

    If you think that you and a bunch of other people can just show up on Wall St, camp out and have any effect whatsoever.... well, you will be run off in 20 minutes., you will leave town having wasted your effort 6/18/11.

    by BeeDeeS on Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 08:17:26 PM PST

    •  Exactly right. There is now a young man Tarek (7+ / 0-)

      Mehanna, an American citizen, who is looking at life in prison for some pretty dubious charges, in a case shot through with holes.  The prosecutors said in addition to surfing Jihadi websites he was "discontented" with America.  If being discontented is a crime you can take me away right now.  

      He said he was on the websites because Muslim-American leaders were afraid to try to answer his questions about how a young Muslim man should feel about being a Muslim-American in the current "war on terror."  They were afraid because of the climate in which they were being watched themselves.   He rejected what he read, but the FBI tried entrapment and he refused.  Entrapment should have ended the case right there.

      At least one of the witnesses who testified against him was under grant of immunity himself, very unreliable witnesses who have swords over their own heads.  

      Metro reports:

      In e-mails intercepted by federal agents, officials said he often talked about his discontent for America and used code words like “making peanut butter and jelly” in place of jihad.

      The prosecutors also said "bin Laden" every other word in an effort to scare the jury.

      The problem is it's a crime when people lie to federal prosecutors, but it's not a crime when they lie to us.  The government frequently lies, Brandon Mayfield, Louis Greco, John Thompson.  In the case of Binyam Mohammed, who was tortured by the Bush administration by having his genital sliced with a razor blade,  Andy Worthington writes:

         "The US authorities insisted that Padilla and Binyam had dinner with various high-up members of al-Qaeda the night before Padilla was to fly off to America. According to their theory the dinner party had to have been on the evening of 3 April in Karachi ... Binyam was  meant to have dined with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Sheikh al-Libi, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Jose Padilla." What made the scenario "absurd," as [Binyam's lawyer] pointed out, was that "two of the conspirators were already in U.S. custody at the time -- Abu Zubaydah was seized six days before, on 28 March 2002, and al-Libi had been held since November 2001.""

      This is presumably verifiable and on a transcript.  So why is no action being taken on what is a provable lie?  We know when Abu Zubaydah was seized.  We know when they said the dinner was.  Why aren't they on a stand explaining how Zubaydah must have been beamed from Gitmo to Karachi and back?

      The point is they are getting close to creating a class of "thought crime" in which going on a boat to Gaza to help the Gazan people and wishing them well is "material support for terrorism," and trusting a government with this power which has no sense of honor.  For which lying is nothing.  That is why the "crucible" of a jury trial is the best method for getting at the truth, and even that fails fairly often, Troy Davis.  Now they want to take that away in the name of the "war on  terror."  

      The NDAA even contains a troublesome provision which Rep. Tom McClintock objected to when he said:

       

        I rise in opposition to Section 1021 of the underlying Conference Report (H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act).  This section 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?

      It's not long before anyone sitting in the street opposing the bombing of Iran can be said to be giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" by hurting morale of the troops.  

      Yes, this is about a lot more than recall.   Time to wake up.

  •  Republicans did not complain when Bush (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divitius

    created it. Did they think it would only apply to others because they (republicans) had god on their side?

  •  Thank you (3+ / 0-)

    Thank You montana and those that help recall these evil people. I wish the american people could kick the president out right now for signing this. Recall Obama!

  •  Why did Rehberg get a pass? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    captbobalou, wilderness voice

    Seems odd the Oathkeepers would only go after Democrats. Oh wait, that's not odd at all.

    •  He didn't get a pass, see update... (0+ / 0-)

      with this statement by Stewart Rhodes addressing Rep. Denny Rehberg:

      From Stewart Rhodes in reply to touchstone033:

      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.

      Don't you worry, we want Rehberg bad.

  •  WI can recall senators!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Colleen Fernald

    Who was the guy that took Feingold? Ron Johnson?  I know you all in WI are tired of looking at recall petitions, but could you do one more????

    Congress is at 9% approval rating - within the +/- of making herpes more popular than congress! - Webranding

    by glitterscale on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 09:38:31 AM PST

  •  Oregon can Recall Senators-But (0+ / 0-)

    They both voted No on this issue-Wyden is in "hot water" over his BS Wyden/Ryan partnership...however

  •  Oathkeepers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge

     Have people actually gone that far off the rails that they see Oathkeepers as a credible organization?
      When did extremism overtake common sense?

    •  The SPLC (0+ / 0-)

      would surely have something to say about that.

      There is also the issue that recall of members of congress is unconstitutional, no matter what a state statute says, and that the NDAA doesn't do what the diarist claims it does, which is probably why so many people neveretheless voted for it.  But yeah, Oathkeepers.  so right they're left.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 08:31:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right the SPLC slammed Oathkeepers (0+ / 0-)

        as "paranoids" who warned of "conspiracy theories" like the government deploying the US military to arrest American citizens.  Can you imagine that?

        •  i can imagine that the SPLC (0+ / 0-)

          so labeled them, yes.

          which goes back to "the NDAA doesn't do what the diarist claims it does."  Based on language in 1031(e) and 1032 of the NDAA, I do not believe there is authority to detain U.S. citizens in U.S. territory, much less without trial, as that would be in violation of not just the Constitution but the Military Commissions Act -- that which the NDAA specifically references and does not expand upon or limit. And if that's not authorized as a "final disposition," there isn't authority for "custody pending final disposition" either.  I've already explained this to you.

          If you think Montana will elect more liberal senators, then perhaps campaign and vote for one.  Everything else is at best bullshit and at worst legitimizing the type of people who worry about FEMA camps and gun confiscation.  And the nicest thing you can say about them is they're crackpots.  Usually racist crackpots.  

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 11:58:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And I've already explained this to you (0+ / 0-)

            There is no need to bother with "what you believe."  Americans can make up their own minds.

             Here is the language in substance of Section 1021 of the final Conference Committee report (the final language,) to which the 13 senators who voted no objected (Cardin (D-MD), Coburn (R-OK), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Durbin (D-IL), Franken (D-MN), Harkin (D-IA), Lee (R-UT), Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Sanders (I-VT),Wyden (D-OR)).  Do you think right-wingers like DeMint would have voted no if he were not getting an earful from his constituents about a defense bill?

            Section 1021 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..."

            That's the skinny, the sentence diagram parts as a court would read it.  Of course they fluff it up with legalese so people lose the thread, the clear meaning.

            The full text of 1021 here.

            “Substantial support” of an “associated force” may imply citizens engaged in innocuous, First Amendment activities.  Rep. Tom McClintock said:

            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.

            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.

            Section 1021 also 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.

            People can go to the Conference Committee report and piece it together for themselves.  There was never a more important time to do so.  Well?  

            http://democrats.rules.house.gov/...

            •  existing law (0+ / 0-)

              could not, for purposes of the hypothetical i raised, "be construed" to refer to a court decision which was (a) limited to detention in the United States of someone "who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war," (b) dealt with authority per statute, not inherent Article III power; (c) was superseded by statute -- the MCA as construed by Boumedienne preserves habeas rights but also, and unlike the state of the law at the time of the 4th circuit Padilla decision, would require a U.S. citizen be at minimum charged before a military tribunal; and (d) was mooted by the government before it could go to the Supreme Court by filing subsequent criminal charges. There is a right to take U.S. citizens into military custody, "pending disposition," but that disposition, as applied to U.S. citizens, does not permit detention without charges and not without habeas review.  So, as i noted, the NDAA does not create new or unlimited powers, and that decision doesn't make 1021(e) a dead letter.

              That's why the 86 senator yes figure is a bit more interesting to me -- i could give a shit why DeMint does anything he does; he's dumber than I am and not a lawyer.  The caveat in the  Padilla case also fleshes out the hypo about "could bloggers be detained?"  I would think a court hearing a habeas petition might take language like "material" and "substantial" a bit more seriously than Rep. McClintock. What he does and does not know is not the final say as to what anyone who can read the statute might or might not know.  That would affect both the statutory power to take into custody and final disposition, and i think the answer is it doesn't exist in  the extreme examples -- the notion the text of a statute would have to be misconstrued to reach a result is not an argument against the text.

              and while, yes, people can decide certain things for themselves, once you make that concession, it's not treason to think otherwise (though it never was); thinking for oneself requires greater precision than you are implying exists; and federal recall remains completely unconstitutional -- the Supreme Court can on some level change their minds about anything, but that does not mean that any interpretation of a bill is equally valid or has any predictive value.

              the irony is i think all of this is a waste of time as a policy matter, and possibly unconstitutional as applied, though not per se.  but it's not an imminent threat, since the Obama administration took the really offending parts out.  In the same way i think of the Senate Protect IP act as pointless but not the threat that the House SOPA is.  

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 01:14:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Seems the final version is not as bad (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FultonDem, Loge

    From Mother Jones magazine:

    " It (the revised bill) says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention—except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military. It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill."

    •  It is nearly as bad. (0+ / 0-)

      The last-minute compromise was heavily watered down from 3 previous amendments proposed to the bill in the Senate, all of which were voted down. Only 49 senators -- and not all of them Dems -- voted for any of those amendments. A couple more and we might have gotten a much better compromise. Each and every one of the remaining 51 -- and a couple of the 49 like Sheldon Whitehouse, who supported only his own amendment, and his cohort Reed from RI -- need to face a serious amount of accountability for this.

      However, both Tester and (surprisingly) Baucus voted in favor of all of the amendments to fix the bill, some of which would have done the opposite of the bill and clarified that the executive does not have the power to indefinitely detain citizens under any circumstances. See roll call votes here, here, and here.

      Virtually all of the "no" votes on the final NDAA legislation (all except the two Idaho senators, along with Coburn and DeMint, who may just not want rich people to have to pay a dime to defend the rest of us; see here and here), both before and after conference, were "yes" votes on at least two of the more substantial amendments. Trying to find 50 votes against the conference report would have been extremely difficult, most likely impossible; only 53 senators in total opposed the bill or supported amendments to fix it at any stage, and not all for the same reason.

      I too would have preferred more debate leading to acceptance of a more substantial amendment, but recalling Tester and Baucus for not casting a symbolic vote in this circumstance (which would inevitably have been labeled as not Supporting The Troops) would be the height of foolishness.

  •  Via AMERICANS AGAINST TEA PARTY: "Everybody calm.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge

    Via AMERICANS AGAINST TEA PARTY: "Everybody calm down. Sen. Feinstein changed the language in the NDAA.
    Sec. 1031 (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
    Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)  http://thomas.loc.gov/...
    thomas.loc.gov
    ‎(bb) in the Annex on Chemicals to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, done at Paris January 13, 1993, and entered into force April 29, 1997 (commonly known as the `Chemical Weapons Convention');

    •  Disinfo artists working hard (0+ / 0-)

      "existing law" was described by Sen. Lindsey Graham, key supporter of the law, as Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Fourth Circuit's decision to uphold Bush claim of authority to hold an American arrested on American soil indefinitely.  Graham called this "the law of the land" which NDAA merely codifies, rather than a decision that was supposed to go to the Supreme Court until Bush pulled Padilla from the Navy brig after   3 1/2 years of "getting his mind right" to avoid SCOTUS review.

      What you have to ask yourself is why the operatives, who are intelligent and know better, are working so hard at lying about this and trying to make you think the NDAA does everything but what it actually does: target American citizens.

      Graham on the Senate floor:
      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/...

      "Judge Luttig Slams Bush Administration in Padilla Case" the Post (reposted in the Legal Reader):

           

       The appeals court opinion reflected a tone of anger that is rare for a federal court addressing the United States government, particularly in a matter of presidential authority.

      A Stanford Law School website notes:

      Luttig said the government's actions created the appearance "that the government may be attempting to avoid" Supreme Court review in a matter of "especial national importance."

      For the full range of tactics see "Why is the Media Lying About New NDAA Power for Indefinite Military Detention of Americans?"

  •  Join us at the American Freedom Campaign to discus (0+ / 0-)

    s this topic:  https:/www.facebook.com/groups/7834451781

  •  The issue HAS reached federal courts. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz

    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-)
      Recommended by:
      tbetz

      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.  

  •  OathKeepers Want Sher. Joe Arpaio To Arrest Obama (0+ / 0-)

    The OathKeeper website does a good job of deleting the comments of the  racists and wannabee liberal killing death squad members, but they include plenty of secessionists, race war fantasizers, militant Paultards, Tenthers, militia nuts, and Sovereign Citizens.  

    They also embrace the idea of the Constitutional Sheriff, which makes people like Joe Arpaio the equivalent of Somali warlord, answerable to no elected official.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 09:31:45 AM PST

Click here for the mobile view of the site