Posted on 04/04/2010 7:01:09 AM PDT by dps.inspect
At some point you have to realize this is a failed republic. You are not there yet. If we wait till it's plainly obvious, it's to late. It's like cancer. The republic is in Stage 1/2 now.
Remember, Hitler was popularly elected in a republic. Anything can happen.
“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.”
Great post. If the legal challenge brought by states against unconstitutional mandates in the Healthcare bill fails, it will open the door to serious discussions about the state-federal relationship. In effect, we may eventually see some forms of a ‘virtual secession’ as states seek to regagin their soverignity.
To paraphrase Congressman Johnson, we really need to restore balance before we “tip over and capsize”. LOL.
From your brilliant description then, it would follow that the now POTUS is acting against the constitution in re-ordering American society via passing laws on a strictly partisan basis and assuming powers not given to him¿ How we need restricting government and POTUS...
I meant "regain". Need another coff of cuppee.
Yet recall is essentially what happened when the Confederated States of America seceded from the Union. A much looser form of government than the one which the “Union” was operating from, and perhaps its greatest weakness was the very lack of coherency. There was little if any centralization of the “Government” of the Confederacy, as each of the states retained the right to print its own currency, there were tolls and duties when moving from one jurisdiction to another, and there was no serious parliament or legislature set up. Oh, the Confederate Congress had patterned themselves on the US Congress, with two Houses, but they never succeeded in gaining the allegiance of all the Confederate states, which could vary with the way the fortunes of war were moving. Jefferson Davis was essentially the chairman of a steering committee.
Given time, and the opportunity to evolve, the Confederacy may well have developed into a viable government, with its own ethical standard, and a much sharper respect for the rule of law and adherence to tradition. Does that mean they would have retained their tradition of slavery? Not once it was clear to one and all that slavery and subjugation of other human beings was both corrosive to the soul and bad economics, and there were more things to be created by appealing to better natures and encouragement of individual merit.
Would the slaves have all migrated back to Africa, given the choice? Some did, as witness the formation of the country of Liberia in Africa. Would more have voluntarily left, once given the option? I am sure they would have, save for the curse of “Reconstruction”, which only gave the former slave population false hope they could then become dominant, not essentially changing the system, just changing who would be top dog. A social experiment that failed, because it was too focused upon retribution or “equality” and not enough on “merit”.
So there is precedent!!!! ¡¡¡eureka!!!
The state law won't bump into this:
Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution provides:”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.”
What is meant by “House”? State Legislative Body?
No, we don’t need a NEW CONSTITUTION - what we need are legislators WILLING TO OBEY THE ONE WE HAVE.
We better start learning about the person we are voting for and make sure they support a willingness to uphold the Constitution - and not just put their hand on a Bible and swear to something they have no intention of following.
WE THE PEOPLE have not done our job .. we have allowed years and years of corruption and pillage and thievery to take place (for political power’s sake) - and we have uttered not a word.
But .. as the Tea Party movement has shown .. there are thousands and hundreds of thousands, EVEN MILLIONS who believe the Constitution we have is just fine .. we just need to elect people who will uphold it.
I believe the Constitution is referring to the Federal Houses (house & Senate). State Constitutions would address the state legislative rules.
The best mechanism of recall is the voting booth. Even if we can recall, by the time we get through the process, the next election will be here anyway.
But to even begin talking about it may in effect put some on notice that their political position is untenable with the voters and thereby cause them to rethink the “Socializing” of America... anyway, if its broken now, it stays broken regardless of the next congress, and the office of POTUS continues to take more power unto itself, regardless of which party takes the seat. To say its too hard or would take too long is incongruent with the need to restrict the out of control US Congress... regardless how long it takes, over the period of 20 years, work needs to begin to restrict and re define/ re-enumerate their powers.
Exactly. It would require that all 50 states have the recall process in their state constitutions.
The first round of effective recalls starts in about 200 days.
The presidential power problem has very old roots.
It began with Shay’s Rebellion, in 1786-’87, farmers protesting against onerous taxes, land confiscation, and debtors prison for those who could not pay. While a local militia prevented it from capturing an armory and turning into another revolution, it showed a weakness of the national government.
Thus, when George Washington was president, and created a poorly thought out whiskey tax, which started the Whiskey Rebellion, he was inclined to use the military to put down the rebellion. This represented the first major assertion of Federalism, that the States and the people must obey the national government.
The next big presidential power grab was after the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison, in 1803. It was the first time that the SCOTUS asserted it had the power of constitutional review of the law. But the president asserted that he couldn’t be forced to either perform his duty, or be made to stop doing something, by the courts, leaving only impeachment by congress as a way to stop his power.
Over time, the presidency has gotten stronger and stronger, with the president essentially “above the law”, since he can pardon anyone, including himself, from any federal crime, even before conviction.
It is mostly seen today, in the appointment of “Czars”, who have not been approved by the US Senate (though the constitution does not mention cabinet officers, nor any requirement for their vetting by the senate.) It is also seen in presidential “memorandums”, such as the infamous one that created the National Security Agency.
And today, with the wholly unconstitutional “presidential signing statements”, which say how the president “interprets” a law passed by congress, along with which parts of it he intends to enforce, and which parts he intends to ignore.
One of the better remedies for this would be a constitutional change recognizing cabinet officials, which also made them impeachable, and required that all presidential decisions had to be made through a cabinet official, or were null and void. It would also have to have a provision limiting the terms of “recess appointments”.
There also needs to be a provision of what, and under what circumstances, executive information must be turned over to the US congress on demand, which cannot be held back on grounds of “executive privilege” or “national security.”
Very importantly, a Presidential War Powers Amendment, a Posse Comitatus Amendment, and Limitation of Presidential Powers During Martial Law Amendment, would help to curtail abuses. In exchange, the president should receive a Line Item Veto Amendment and a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Hopefully, this will leave the presidency as a powerful institution, but not an arrogant or overreaching one.
Not exactly. Congressional representatives (federal, of course) MUST be elected, not appointed. Senators, on the other hand, must be elected as their 6-year terms expire, but STATE law determines how replacement senators are selected between scheduled terms. Initially, Senators were elected by state legislators.
This was changed in 1913 by the 17th amendment, which also provided for their replacement - by temporary appointment if so legislated.
__________________________________________________________
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
___________________________________________________________
Massachusetts was manipulated by the Kennedys to take appointment power away from a republican governor, and attempted to restore it to a democrat.
“Massachusetts was manipulated by the Kennedys to take appointment power away from a republican governor, and attempted to restore it to a democrat.”
This was my point regarding the temporary replacement issue (not elections) and the Kennedy-driven political manipulations pertaining thereto. Basically making up rules as they go along. I realize this was a side bar to the thread topic so should have used a “/sarc” notation.
If only those provisions could stand a constitutional amendment, that would indeed solve some of our ills. But while we’er at it, lets add to it; that no major bill affecting so much of our economy, can be enacted under one party rule, regardless how strong the one party may be. What we are seeing is a building resentment among the opposition that may swell into great civil unrest as the result of one party steam rolling over the opposition. Many see the action of the one party juggernaut as uncivil even if legal. Something needs to be posited by leaders of both parties to bring “political civility” and parity so as to stem a rising tide of discontent.
That might be addressed in the “single bill amendment” (no unrelated attachments), as well as the line item veto.
Many bills have the potential to significantly affect our economy, from changing how the national government is able to tax, to articles of war against another nation, to the development, maintenance and use of ‘legitimate’ interstate and international commerce.
However, the ability of both houses of congress to set their own rules creates problems in both extremes, the arrogance of the majority, vs. the ability of a single senator, for example, to thwart nominations or legislation. And the mid-term rule changes have become rather ridiculous, as well.
Repealing the 17th Amendment could be of great help, as senators appointed by the States would bring the State prerogative into congress as well.
All sorts of possibilities, all sorts of arguments. These are things that the States should be discussing among themselves right now, as it will be them who will, or will not, bring them to life.
Au contraire. According to the Constitution, Reps are elected for a two year term, Senators for a six year term.
No allowance for a state or district to change its mind in a shorter time.
Sorry, this just sets the normal term of office. A state cannot set a differng term of office under its laws. But, I see nothing whatsoever that would stand in the way of a legal, sanctioned recall under the laws of a given state.
Of course, the Senate or House could refuse to honor the results of the recall, seting the stage for a constitutional crisis. I can’t say how that would turn out, but my exxpectation would be that the recall election would be upheld, if indeed the Court even took the case.
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.