8 Men Out - All "Republican":All Wrong: All should be recalled

[Selene]

Folks:

These scumbags should be put banned as in Roman and Greek times.

I will be sending out individual e-mails to each of you with a map of their district. See if you have a friend or a relative who lives in the scums district.

I will be making phone calls to each of their offices with updates on how many folks that I have commitments from to vote against them.

This is personal. They did not read the almost 1500 page bill and voted for it. This is inexcusable.

Yours for a free society

I remain,

--- On Sat, 6/27/09, Amer Int Mediation AIM <jgalt44@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Amer Int Mediation AIM <jgalt44@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: Eight Men Out - they should be banned from Congress and all baseball games forever. In fact we should give them food and water for 30 days and then 100% exile

To: "Adam Selene" <jgalt44@yahoo.com>

Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009, 7:25 PM

"As John notes below, the House passed cap-and-trade energy tax legislation last night even though no complete copy of that legislation existed, making it impossible for our representatives to know exactly what they were voting on. The vote was 219-212.

Eight Republicans voted in favor of the legislation. They are: Mary Bono (CA), Mike Castle (DE), Mark Kirk (IL), Leonard Lance (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Chris Smith (NJ), John McHugh (NY), and David Reichert (WA).

It doesn't follow that these Republican votes (or at least four them) were critical to the passage of cap-and-trade. In the absence of Republican support, the Democratic leadership probably would have forced the necessary number of reluctant Dems to vote for the measure, instead of letting them off the hook.

But the eight Republicans still (a) voted for job-killing legislation rushed through before anyone could know exactly what it entails and (B) gave aid and comfort to some Democratic representatives by enabling them to avoid paying a political price for a "yea" vote they were prepared to provide if Speaker Pelosi needed it."

I had always assumed that you could recall a Congressman...imagine my surprise to find out that:

"RECALL

In some States, State legislators and other State or local elected officials may be removed from office before the expiration of their established terms not only by action of the legislature itself through an expulsion (or for executive officers, through an “impeachment” and conviction by the legislature), but also by the voters through a “recall” election procedure. While an expulsion is an inherent authority of legislative bodies incident to their general powers over their own proceedings and members, recall is a special process outside of the legislature itself, exercised by the people through a special election. Recall provisions for State or local officers became popular in the “progressive movement,” particularly in the western and plains States, in the early part of the 20th Century.[21 ]

Constitutional History.

The United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officials such as United States Senators, Representatives to Congress, or the President or Vice President of the United States, and thus no United States Senator or Member of the House of Representatives has ever been recalled in the history of the United States.

As early as 1807, a Senate Committee examining the question of the Senate’s duty and broad authority to expel a Member, noted that such

duty devolves to the Senate not only because of the express constitutional grant of authority, but also as a practical matter because the Constitution does not allow for a “recall” of elected Members of Congress by the people or the State. The Committee noted specifically that the Constitution had set out numerous provisions, qualifications and requirements for Members of Congress to prevent conflicts of interest and to assure a certain degree of fealty to constituents, but did not give a Member’s constituency the authority to recall such a Member:

The spirit of the Constitution is, perhaps, in no respect more remarkable

than in the solicitude which it has manifested to secure the purity of the

Legislature by that of the elements of its composition .... Yet, in the midst of all

this anxious providence of legislative virtue, it has not authorized the constituent

body to recall in any case its representative. [22]

The recall of United States Senators or Representatives had been considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution, but recall provisions were rejected and were not included in the final version of the Constitution sent to the 23 The Articles of Confederation of 1777 had contained a provision for recall of United States Senators by the state legislatures. Section V stated that the state legislatures would have “a power reserved in each state to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year and to send others in their stead ....” At the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, “Randolph’s Propositions” of May 29, 1787 proposed for recall of popularly elected representatives, but this was not accepted by the Convention. I Elliot, Debates on

the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 143-144, 172 (1888). 24 3 Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 173 (Appendix A).

25 II Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 289 (1888); note also discussion of state ratifying debate on lack of authority for state recall in the federal Constitution, in Herbert S. Swan, “The Use of Recall in the United States,” from The Initiative, Referendum and Recall, National Municipal League Series, (William Bennett Munro, editor), at p. 298, n.2 (1912). 26 Thomas E. Cronin, Direct Democracy, The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, at 129 (Harvard University Press 1989). 27 202 U.S. 344 (1906). States for ratification.23

The ratifying process in the States evidences debate over this lack of inclusion of a recall provision. Luther Martin of Maryland, for example, in

an address delivered to the Maryland Legislature, criticized the proposed Constitution because the Senators “are to pay themselves, out of the treasury of the United States; and are not liable to be recalled during the period for which they are chosen.”24 In New York, an amendment was defeated in the 1788 ratifying convention which would have allowed the state legislatures to “recall their Senators ... and elect others in their stead.”25 This history indicates an understanding of the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United States Congress existed under the Constitution as ratified. As noted by an academic authority on the mechanisms of “direct democracy”:

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered but eventually rejected resolutions calling for this same type of recall [recall of Senators by the state

legislatures as provided in the Articles of Confederation]. ... In the end, the idea of placing a recall provision in the Constitution died for lack of support — at

least from those participating in the ratifying conventions. The framers and the ratifiers were consciously seeking to remedy what they viewed as the defects of the Articles of Confederation and some of their state constitutions, and for many of them this meant retreating from an excess of democracy.26

This knowledge has not made me a happy camper today!

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Cap and Tread will be seen as a disaster very soon. I cannot believe those Republicans were so crass. Well, fewer Republicans, but better....

[galtgulch]

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered but eventually rejected resolutions calling for this same type of recall [recall of Senators by the state

legislatures as provided in the Articles of Confederation]. ... In the end, the idea of placing a recall provision in the Constitution died for lack of support — at

least from those participating in the ratifying conventions. The framers and the ratifiers were consciously seeking to remedy what they viewed as the defects of the Articles of Confederation and some of their state constitutions, and for many of them this meant retreating from an excess of democracy.26

This knowledge has not made me a happy camper today!

Adam

Adam,

I think our only hope is to infiltrate both major parties with pro freedom, pro strict Constitutionalists, who will give their word that they will... I was about to say that they would take an oath to uphold the Constitution... but the ones in power already do that and ignore it anyway.

The only people I know of who take these issues seriously are members of the Campaign For Liberty. We are about to witness a sea change in American politics as virtually every Congressman will find a challenger from C4L in every district in the country, not only in 2010, but in every election from now on!

Those who already are in the movement are making others aware of it. This is happening especially in the colleges and universities as well as high schools.

www.campaignforliberty.com 28Jun 9PM 165,266

I wish those who scoff at this would please explain just what they are counting on to alter the course of our country. I agree that the various think tanks, CATO, ARI, Atlas Society, Future of Freedom Foundation, Reason Foundation, Institute For Humane Studies, and The Ludwig von Mises Institute, in no particular order, and many others do play a significant role and will continue to do so. But the electorate is still appallingly ignorant.

gulch

Edited June 29, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

"The only people I know of who take these issues seriously are members of the Campaign For Liberty. We are about to witness a sea change in American politics as virtually every Congressman will find a challenger from C4L in every district in the country, not only in 2010, but in every election from now on!"

Will these 435 challengers be running in the primaries and the general election?

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gulch:

"The only people I know of who take these issues seriously are members of the Campaign For Liberty. We are about to witness a sea change in American politics as virtually every Congressman will find a challenger from C4L in every district in the country, not only in 2010, but in every election from now on!"

Will these 435 challengers be running in the primaries and the general election?

Adam

Adam,

It is too early to say. I know that in my CD there is a businessman who intends to run against our incumbent Congressman. I thought it might be helpful to run against the businessman in the Republican primary so we could arrange for debates in every town in the lengthy district in order to bring the voters attention to our perspective.

He and I agree about most things in the economic realm but disagree regarding the woman's right to choose issue where I am pro choice. The only danger is that I might win the primary because of that issue alone. That is farfetched and unlikely actually. But it might be a meaningful experience to debate in public, an activity for which I have no talent.

gulch

Edited June 29, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

We have had this conversation about that candidate and your congressman.

[galtgulch]

We have had this conversation about that candidate and your congressman.

True. It remains to be seen if enough people step up to run as we hope. The establishment candidates, especially incumbents, will be hard to beat. Tough to run a low budget campaign. That is one reason why we thought the primary debate approach would be worth doing to get some publicity.

Regarding the eight Republicans who voted for the cap and trade bill, there is a possibility that they could be persuaded to change their votes:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/97723

Even if they do though, it might just mean that some democrats will be made to vote for it of the forty who voted against it.

g

Edited June 29, 2009 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

One of the GOPers who is John McHugh. He has already been appointed Army Secretary by Obama so he's already left.