Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate

www.dailykos.com

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, inco

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.fox19.com

This is leading by example if I have ever seen it. More States need to get on board and allow for a recall of State elected Officials who violate their Oath of Office. According to the article only 9 States allow a recall. 9 out of 50 is unacceptable and we now live in a time where the people, who hold the real power, should have a legal option to hold their elected Officials accountable.

Those "crazy conspiracy theorist" warned everyone 10 years ago that detaining "Terrorist" without due process of law would one day be turned against US Citizens. History has shown this to be true. Now no one can deny it. It always starts with an "undesirable" group, but then it ALWAYS extends to everyone. This is why it is so important to defend the rights, not only of citizens, but of ALL people.

Nice job Montana, the rest of the country needs to follow their lead. The whole World is watching.

Be sure to click the link under "Related Links". As an added bonus I have linked the latest "Reality Check" from Ben Swann which also takes at look at the NDAA. It is must watch!

www.dailykos.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I hope this is true and I hope that all other States follow the example.
Go Montana.

ETA as the post above me mentioned, only 9 States allow recall...

reply to post by MrWendal


This is excellent! How many other states allow the recall of congressmen? Each and every one of them needs to step up and follow Montana's example! This needs to go viral. FLAG THIS everybody!

Edit to add: lol, like the posters above me stated, 9 states can actually get on the bandwagon. It's sad that only a 5th of the corruption can be removed this way. Oh well, it's a start.



Edit to add further: Dailypaul.com actually had this to say;

18 states presently have recall laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. State legislatures can pass them in states which do not.

The states that don't have recall petition capabilities need to push their legislature to do it for them. This can, and must be done if we are to return this country to its founding principals of freedom and justice for all.

reply to post by Kali74


I am not sure how credible the Daily Kos is. I have been looking for additional sources, and everything seems to direct me back to Daily Kos. In any event, I too hope this is real. It gives me hope.

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by MrWendal

 

This is excellent! How many other states allow the recall of congressmen? Each and every one of them needs to step up and follow Montana's example! This needs to go viral. FLAG THIS everybody!

As I said in the OP, only 9 states allow for the recall of elected Officials and 9 out of 50 is unacceptable. More States need to adopt this policy and more States needs to follow this example. This is how you hold our elected Officials accountable when they blatantly violate their oath of Office. It is real hard to "defend the Constitution" when you are the one dismantling it with legislation. Anyone who voted in favor of the NDAA blatantly violated their Oath of Office. In my opinion, it is Treason and they should be arrested and tried, but I will take what I can get.

At least we now know where to look if seeking a place where real americans still reside......
Go you Crazy Cowboys!
Well we know they aint all cowpokes anymore, but it feels good to say it.....And the constitution is safe among them.....well done!

Go Montana! I just hope the recall election is done on paper and not on the electronic voting machines.

Brilliant, too bad all the states don't have these provisions in place to thwart traitors in their states
So does this make their vote null and void if they're recalled???

reply to post by MrWendal


I live in Montana. I haven't heard a word about it. There was much talk of a recall in 2009, but it came to nothing. My gut, and past experience says there may be muttering; mostly in the form of Letters To The Editor, some online petitions, and some bellied-up-to-the-bar rants, but it will fizzle. I could be wrong though. I hope so. I will drop a link if I find anything in the local media, and put an ear to the ground with some family members still friendly (ish) to Mr. Baucus and see if anything turns up. Hear-say on that last bit I know but sometimes such tactics can be fruitful.

reply to post by redhorse


Oh that would be great! I had not even considered members who may be local to the area. If you can find any type of confirmation on this please post and lets us know.

edited to add:

I would not be so quick to assume that such a move would fizzle out. The NDAA is very much in your face. When the idea of holding people without due process of law first began, it was to be used on "terrorist" and people said, "If your not a terrorist you have nothing to worry about. It's not like it is a Citizen. They wouldnt do that"

Then we moved on to torture and people said, "Well we only do that to "terrorist" and if your not a terrorist you have nothing to worry about."

Then we moved on to spying. People said, "Well we only spy on citizens who have connections to "terrorist" and if your not a terrorist and you dont make plans with terrorist you have nothing to worry about."

Then we moved on to Assassinating American Citizens. People then said, "Well yeah, but he was also a Terrorist, if you are not a Terrorist you have nothing to worry about"

Now the Legislation has advanced again and it is no longer just "terrorist" anymore. It is us. It is US Citizens and that is a huge difference than previous pieces of Legislation that has passed. It is becoming harder and harder and harder to deny who the real target is.

Go Oath Keepers!

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.

www.dailykos.com...< br />

Well, if true, this is a move in the right direction!

Finally people aren't falling for the old and tired line of "it's for your security!"
I remember back when the Patriot Act came in and so many Americans were all for it, refusing any suggestion that it could ever lead to anything against the American people. And look how that went!

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

I must be getting old, I expect to be disappointed when I see news like this. OK, it may happen, but don't get too excited yet.

Why not, Mr. Grumpy Pants?

Well, three things. One, no court has ever upheld such a recall action of a federal legislator, New Jersey's recall law was declared unconstitutional.

Two, the code language is pretty darn fuzzy. I couldn't find an airtight definition of key terms. For example:

(2) "Public office" means a position of duty, trust, or authority created by the constitution or by the legislature or by a political subdivision through authority conferred by the constitution or the legislature.

I would bet a penny that this would be interpreted as the state constitution or state legislature. US Congressmen wouldn't be covered. That's essential because 2-16-603 uses that definition of public office.

Three, look at the grounds for recall:

(3) Physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense enumerated in Title 45 are the only grounds for recall.

None of those are "They made a really bad decision and we hate them."

My vote would be to have 41 states change their constitutions to allow the removal of those who are in office if the voters decide so. This may help individual states, but since the vote for the NDAA was so strong I don't think it will be going away nationally.

I'm just wondering how long it is going to take to hit the MSM. Please post any MSM articles or video as they come out on this thread. I am guessing this will be something that will not make headline news, or very little if it does at all. The attorney involved Mr. Rhodes being a Yale graduate, has impressive credentials and is very well spoken. Let's hope it takes off.

reply to post by MrWendal

Nine states may allow recall, but the US Constitution, as far as I can tell, does not. No state can recall a US official, because they do not serve under the authority of the state constitution, but the US Constitution.

And the NDAA does not authorize the blah blah blah, if you haven't read it and figured it out yet, you never will.

Wow I live in Montana and didn't hear ANYTHING on this in the media. What a great Christmas present Can wait too hear if any of the other 9 states follow with us. Proud day to be a Montanan

The Constitution does not mention recall of federal officials. However, a SCOTUS interpretation has established that states do not have the sovereign authority to change the term of service of a federal official. That authority lies exclusively with each House of Congress as delegated in the expulsion clause of the Constitution.

Expulsion from the United States Congress

Expulsion is the most serious form of disciplinary action that can be taken against a Member of Congress. Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." The processes for expulsion differ somewhat between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The following is an excerpt from a report by the Congressional Research Service:

Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office

Under the United States Constitution and congressional practice, Members of Congress may have their services ended prior to the normal expiration of their constitutionally established terms of office by their resignation or death, or by action of the House of Congress in which they are a Member by way of an “expulsion,” or by a finding that in accepting a subsequent public office deemed to be “incompatible” with congressional office, the Member has vacated his congressional seat.

Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of the respective body present and voting. While there are no specific grounds for an expulsion expressed in the Constitution, expulsion actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived disloyalty to the United States, or the conviction of a criminal statutory offense which involved abuse of one’s official position. Each House has broad authority as to the grounds, nature, timing, and procedure for an expulsion of a Member. However, policy considerations, as opposed to questions of authority, have appeared to restrain the Senate and House in the exercise of expulsion when it might be considered as infringing on the electoral process, such as when the electorate knew of the past misconduct under consideration and still elected or re-elected the Member.

As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the states for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the Framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United States Congress exists under the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other Supreme Court decisions, as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative decisions, rulings and opinions, indicate that (1) the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides exclusively in each House of Congress as expressly delegated in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the length and number of the terms of office for federal officials, established and agreed upon by the states in the Constitution creating that Federal Government, may not be unilaterally changed by an individual state, such as through the enactment of a recall provision or a term limitation for a United States Senator or Representative. Under Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, since individual states never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be “reserved” under the 10th Amendment.

Looks like it will have to be a SCOTUS decision on constitutionality

reply to post by N3k9Ni

I like your post and wouldn't argue with a thing in it, but I do have a question. The only way I can see that the Supremes would bother to hear it would be if the circuit held the recall was constitutional. Sure, Montana is in the 9th Circuit, but are even those guys nuts enough to approve of the recall?