Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention(dailykos.com)
dailykos.com
Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate
5 comments
I find it odd that there is no clear "punishment" for voting a law that is clearly unconstitutional. I wouldn't mind if you had to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court if it's unconstitutional or not first, but what then? They still won't suffer any consequence, other than (maybe) stopping them from getting re-elected, if the public even finds out about that.
The media clearly doesn't want to talk about this, so the public would have to find out on its own, and then vote them out.
http://www.businessinsider.com/whys-the-media-shafting-ron-p...
The media clearly doesn't want to talk about this, so the public would have to find out on its own, and then vote them out.
http://www.businessinsider.com/whys-the-media-shafting-ron-p...
The ideal, of course, is that the voters will remove offending Senators via the ballot box. This is a problem when said ballot is years away. There should, imo, be procedures for recall for all elected officials.
Who decides what's "clear"? And what would you have the punishment be, exactly? And who gets to decide which of the minimum 269 individuals had the necessary mens rea? And do you really want to criminalize people having different opinions on what is Constitutional?
Are you prepared to start punishing voters who approve state referendums that are held unconstitutional? Why not?
Are you prepared to start punishing voters who approve state referendums that are held unconstitutional? Why not?
Not relevant to Hacker News. Please don't turn it into a Reddit.
Guidelines (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) state:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Guidelines (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) state:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
For those of you who aren't totally up on your US geography Montana is landlocked so they are very unlikely to take this any further.
about time someone stood up to all these unconstitutional things.
Not gonna happen. Two key passages from Article 1:
"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 Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."
The power to determine who is a member of Congress, and to remove a sitting member of Congress, is vested solely in the two houses of Congress. There is no precedent for removal of a member of Congress by any other mechanism, and several precedents to the contrary (e.g. attempts to impose term limits on Congressional candidates).
"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 Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."
The power to determine who is a member of Congress, and to remove a sitting member of Congress, is vested solely in the two houses of Congress. There is no precedent for removal of a member of Congress by any other mechanism, and several precedents to the contrary (e.g. attempts to impose term limits on Congressional candidates).
I'm unsure about the House, but there are a handful of states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin) that have state laws allowing for the recall of their US Senators. It's been attempted a few times, but it has never succeeded.
EDIT: I found that list of states here, but I actually don't know now how accurate it might be: http://www.ehow.com/how_2096900_recall-us-senator.html
EDIT: I found that list of states here, but I actually don't know now how accurate it might be: http://www.ehow.com/how_2096900_recall-us-senator.html
States have a lot of laws on the books that can't be enforced, that's not really relevant to my point.
I don't think there's any reason to believe they can't have their own rules in this regard - especially since senators in particular represent the state itself and the United States is (was?) a federation of the states, therefore the states technically have (had?) the power over the feds and not the other way around. Sending representatives from each state is (or should be) the state's privilege and should not elevate them to king-hood over the very state they are supposed to represent the interests of.
Of course.. it's never been tested because a recall attempt of a US Senator in any state that allows for it has never progressed to the point where it'd have to have been implemented and so it may ultimately be illegal if the supreme courts says it is. However states have a certain right to withdraw from the union as a whole because of disputes like this because the union itself exists at the request of the member states themselves. We at least know that has been tried, but it didn't go very well...
Of course.. it's never been tested because a recall attempt of a US Senator in any state that allows for it has never progressed to the point where it'd have to have been implemented and so it may ultimately be illegal if the supreme courts says it is. However states have a certain right to withdraw from the union as a whole because of disputes like this because the union itself exists at the request of the member states themselves. We at least know that has been tried, but it didn't go very well...
The Supreme Court does not share your views of state power and the nature of Congressional representation. See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779. Assorted passages from Justice Stevens' majority opinion:
"Even if we believed that States possessed as part of their original powers some control over congressional qualifica- tions, the text and structure of the Constitution, the relevant historical materials, and, most importantly, the “basic principles of our democratic system” all demonstrate that the Qualifications Clauses were intended to preclude the States from exercising any such power and to fix as exclusive the qualifications in the Constitution."
Footnote 20: "The Framers’ decision to reject a proposal allowing for States to recall their own representatives, see 1 Farrand 20, 217, reflects these same concerns."
"In light of the Framers’ evident concern that States would try to undermine the National Government, they could not have intended States to have the power to set qualifications. Indeed, one of the more anomalous consequences of petitioners’ argument is that it accepts federal supremacy over the procedural aspects of determining the times, places, and manner of elections while allowing the States carte blanche with respect to the substantive qualifications for membership in Congress."
"The Framers decided that the qualifications for service in the Congress of the United States be fixed in the Constitution and be uniform throughout the Nation. That decision reflects the Framers’ understanding that Members of Congress are chosen by separate constituencies, but that they become, when elected, servants of the people of the United States. They are not merely delegates appointed by separate, sovereign States; they occupy offices that are inte- gral and essential components of a single National Government. In the absence of a properly passed constitutional amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was designed, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, to form a “more perfect Union.”"
"Even if we believed that States possessed as part of their original powers some control over congressional qualifica- tions, the text and structure of the Constitution, the relevant historical materials, and, most importantly, the “basic principles of our democratic system” all demonstrate that the Qualifications Clauses were intended to preclude the States from exercising any such power and to fix as exclusive the qualifications in the Constitution."
Footnote 20: "The Framers’ decision to reject a proposal allowing for States to recall their own representatives, see 1 Farrand 20, 217, reflects these same concerns."
"In light of the Framers’ evident concern that States would try to undermine the National Government, they could not have intended States to have the power to set qualifications. Indeed, one of the more anomalous consequences of petitioners’ argument is that it accepts federal supremacy over the procedural aspects of determining the times, places, and manner of elections while allowing the States carte blanche with respect to the substantive qualifications for membership in Congress."
"The Framers decided that the qualifications for service in the Congress of the United States be fixed in the Constitution and be uniform throughout the Nation. That decision reflects the Framers’ understanding that Members of Congress are chosen by separate constituencies, but that they become, when elected, servants of the people of the United States. They are not merely delegates appointed by separate, sovereign States; they occupy offices that are inte- gral and essential components of a single National Government. In the absence of a properly passed constitutional amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was designed, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, to form a “more perfect Union.”"
I'm not sure why parent was downvoted when the article itself mentions that a NJ law allowing for the recall of Senators has been struck down. Granted, it also says that the issue never reached the Supreme Court, but if it happened and if it were upheld, that's exactly the sort of scenario that would get Supreme Court review.
That said, I wish them the best of luck. Even if it doesn't work for whatever reason, I think it's an important way for people to make their wishes known.
That said, I wish them the best of luck. Even if it doesn't work for whatever reason, I think it's an important way for people to make their wishes known.
And there it is, plainly stated.