Posted on 04/04/2010 7:01:09 AM PDT by dps.inspect
Question... what would happen if states recalled their congressional reps, what would be the effect on the Federal Government? Is it illegal to consider such a move? What would happen to the governance of the over-bloated federal bureaucracy? Could state governments rule themselves without Federal Bureaucracy? Could all states provide for a common defense without a FB? Do States reserve the right and power to tear down ineffective FB and restructure it so it no longer is the monster that it is? Just the wonderings of a workin' stiff, i.e., who's only power is the gumption to work to earn a living and vote.... Christ IS Risen...
Recall is unconstitutional.
I think the effort is already underway to do just that in the states that allow it.
It’s an uphill battle though, and sort of moot in an election year.
I wouldn’t mind the elected governors running a congress twice a year. Problem is that you’re screwing with the constitution I think.
The only legal recall happens on November 2nd.
SO is Affirmative Action, along with about a million other federal regulations. What's you point?
Recall of Federal legislators is.
State and local legislators can be recalled if their laws allow it.
While I like your analogy, I believe the posters point was that there is no mechanism/process in the Constitution for re-calling Federal legislators.
States however can recall state and local level legislators.
If state law allows it federal legislators can be recalled. There is no constituional bar.
The issue is not one of recalling representatives, but of the individual States forming a constitutional convention to return the national government to a sense of order, within the limited constitutional framework appropriate to our times.
We, the people, should not be afraid of the term “appropriate to our times”, because it does not imply change bringing forth even more government, but to correct and limit what exists, that has been known to be flawed almost as soon as our current constitution was finished.
Thus, the rationale for a constitution begins first, with the individual States rebalancing the power between the national government, the States, and the people. This mostly means the reduction of the power of the federal government over the States and the people, and the strengthening of the power of the States and the people with respect to the national government. Nothing terribly radical there.
The other action of a constitutional convention would be to rebalance the branches of the federal government with respect to each other.
For example, the presidency is far too strong, and needs some limitations to its powers. The judiciary is caught in an archaic organization, that needs to be administratively readjusted so that it functions more efficiently. And the legislative branch has weakened itself too much, delegating too much power, and stumbling over process so much that our representatives do not see, and certainly do not understand, what they are voting for and against.
The constitutional convention itself is done solely from the perspective of the individual States, and what they, as governments, want their national government to be. This is far from frivolous, as 2/3rds (34) of the States must agree to meet, first; the 3/4ths (38) of the States must agree to any changes.
So for all intents and purposes, at least 38 States will have to be in agreement over what to do, even before convening a convention. This guarantees great orderliness to the process.
And, to insure that its directions are carried out, once 38 States are in agreement, the convention will have to remain seated until what it has ordered has been achieved, not ignored or distorted by those unwilling to carry out their orders.
From that point, it will likely function by simple majority vote, to remove or relieve, and replace, any official not performing their duty, and as needed, to schedule new elections.
Clearly the SCOTUS and the Constitution are a joke. Sorry, but it's true. Nobody follows it anymore.
The New Confederate Constitution will shore up the holes in the old one.... :) < /sarcasm >
The Constitution does not mandate precisely how states elect their federal legislators. That is left to the states. And it is also up to the states if they wish to permit the “unelection” of those very federal legislators.
In fact some of those recall provisions predate the constitution.
Better yet, states should refuse to hold/sanction National Elections. Don’t even have representatives to recall. Then secede. Problem solved.
The poster was asking about federal, not state, but you are correct.
“The Constitution does not mandate precisely how states elect their federal legislators. That is left to the states.”
In the case of the state of Massachusetts, the Kennedys used to tell the state how to replace federal legislators.
Federal courts are likely to be receptive to striking down recall elections of incumbent members of Congress. Among other things, Congressional incumbents determine the federal court budget.
I think the point is that, because THEY fight and struggle to weak the Constitution, WE should fight and struggle to uphold it. Some apparently do not understand that someone else’s moral, legal and ethical failures do not justify our own.
“Recall is unconstitutional”
Do you have a reference from the Constitution upon which you base that assumption ..??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.