Free Republic

The American public have every right and duty, therefore the absolute responsibility, to hold any and all elected officials to task. In cases of either the Federal or state, the people that elect, therefore also by legal extension, have the right to recall any elected official for cause.
I can find no law, right or privilege, that allows elected officials to act with gross negligence, carelessness, malfeasance, criminal conduct, to act in within a conspiracy with others, or in violation of the oath to which they take. To serve as an elected official, one does so at the pleasure of the people.

For too long, the American people have forfeited their rights to hold elected officials responsible to the laws and collective will of this nation (as well as state laws), thereby allowing these public servants to abuse not only their oaths and the office they hold, but equally, the people and public trust that elected them.

Rather than fewer recalls, there should be more... many more. To elect a person for any period of time and be (or expected to be) forced to allow abuse of the public trust and office held, is not only irresponsible, but historically damming to the nation as a whole.

Freedom is most definitely NOT the right to do whatever you or our elected officials want and to hell with the consequences. That is anarchy, not freedom.

They say that you don't know freedom until you've lost it. This is perhaps a little dramatic, but what is true, is that freedom doesn't come without a cost. Freedom has obligations. Freedom demands responsibility and vigilance of the people against abuse of their trust and license.

True freedom includes freedom of speech, religion, association, and the responsibility to make sure those in power never abuse the people or the Constitution of this nation.

What a better country this would be, if the electorate of this country held every elected official, from every elected school board member, to every elected state office holder, to every elected Judge, to every elected official at the Federal level, inclusive of Congress and the President, therein establishing that these elected (and appointed) positions, shall therein be occupied by only by responsible, honest, trustworthy, non-special interest public trustees of the public's welfare and business.

It is for this reason, I also believe that government employees have no right to be represented by unions. Whatever privilege they have to seek employment by the people, should be based solely upon the need of the people, with wages and benefits that should NEVER exceed their employer's wages and benefits in the private sector.

Should the voting public have the right to recall elected officials? ABSOLUTELY!!

But then, it's only my opinion......

Thank you for an excellent post. Too often we hear from those on the left (and right), that either haven't understood the facts, or haven't taken the time to research the historical record.
It reflects badly on this nation, that we allow our history and therefore our future, to be redrawn and redefined by those that are purely agenda driven, then pushed and published to our children as some type of present day fact. As a nation, we are paying a terrible price for this ignorance. Our children and our grandchildren are paying and will continue to pay an unbearable price for this folly.

Given this great liberal experiment of removing religion, personal responsibility, morals and truth from the classrooms, courts and even our homes, it is no wonder our children are more violent, filled with rage and hate, labored with despair and suicidal tendencies. No wonder they have little or no respect for others, themselves or their own bodies. When did we see the youth of America begin to fail to meet the educational standards of bygone years, when did the strength and protection of the family evaporate and when were our children left abandoned by America. One need not look back further in history, than when the elite left wing liberal socialists gained control of our educational systems and government in the mid to late 60's. The leftist's have no problem with the teachings of revisionism, blame it on America, blame it on big business, blame it on religion, ignoring law in favor of political correctness, the personal gratification of the self... over all others, hopelessness, hate, multiculturalism, racism, anti-family, and anti-American agendas. Never mind the fact, that these agenda's are now and have always been, failed policies and agendas. Never mind the damage it does to our children, parents or this nation. For these policies have one goal.... To destroy from within, that which no nation on earth can do spiritually, militarily or economically.

I am not aware that you or any other person in this country, are or have been required or imposed upon, in believing in one or another religion, either by a religious organization or the government. Perhaps you could document such statement. In terms of your belief that somehow there is a Constitutional exclusion to the "Ten Commandments", again, I must suggest that you document your statement.

The "Ten Commandments" are not only that which Christians (and most other religions and beliefs) understand to be "God's" laws, but each of them are mirrored, founded and anchored in both criminal and civil law. Your assumption (however mistaken) that our laws, if defined by the principles of the "Ten Commandments", must therein (somehow) "exclude members of other faiths, or dismiss nonbelievers", is nothing less than an uneducated comment and or guess at the historical basis of our judiciary and the laws to which they must work within. As such, they represent neither religious dogma or trivial rational. These are principles of moral responsibilities, which over thousands of decades, have been adopted by civilized societies throughout the world, regardless of religious affiliation.

The laws of this nation, each of our states and in our local communities are based and founded on a combination of English, Roman and religious laws, as applicable to this country and the moral will of the people. While some people such as yourself, or let's say the criminal element, may feel "excluded", exclusion usually is self imposed as the result of selfishness and or self gratification. One can play thesaurus word tag all day, but in the end, laws are designed to protect the general public from "immoral" criminal acts.

Judge Moore's assessment of the basis of our laws is straight forward, correct and based upon fact. Whether you agree with him or not, is not important. What is important, is that he was required to take an oath, which he took, lived, honored and obeyed. What is important, is a Federal Judge, without proper foundation or Constitutional power, overthrew a State's Constitutional law, based solely on his personal biased liberal beliefs. But you, like the Judge in question, are only concerned with issues against Christians, people of religious conviction and the Ten Commandments. There is absolutely nothing in the Ten Commandments, that adopts any religion. Perhaps if you read the Ten Commandments, you might understand the importance of it. But fear not, the issue is not resolved, nor will it die away.

If a person is so lacking in the educated ability to see the absolute moral equivalency between the Ten Commandments and the laws of this country, which have and continue to be equally adjudicated toward all people in this nation, to protect all people in this nation, nothing that can be written or said can help you.

I would close by reminding you just where laws are written, debated, adopted and or rejected and by what means. We have two houses of Congress at the Federal level, and two houses in each Legislatures for each state. In all cases, these people are elected by the people. Most criminal law statutes are written by criminal attorneys, which seek sponsorship by their Representative, in bringing the new legislation to the floor as a "Bill". Once debated, the Bill is passed or rejected on it's merits. If there were no "moral" concerns, there would be no reason to object to any Bill or law. Perhaps you know of some religious group that hides deep within a tunnel that makes laws? Or are you just against people of moral and religious conviction, having an equal right to express their desires and requests?

KDD

Your reply and link is fought with the same attempt to rewrite history and the historical content, as is this nation is made to witness, every day by every suffering liberal. By citing ONLY the line that suits the argument, one does not have to contemplate or attempt to witness the truth of the whole and complete statement in context. I was very interested in the dates of publish, to which your link relied upon. I believe it makes my point, rather than dispel it.

The fact of the matter, is that the historical record is replete with the Founding Fathers witness to "God", to which today, liberals beg never happened. One also must understand that the name "God", IS NOT A RELIGION, rather, it is the acceptance of one that is greater than ourselves. Let's be honest. The argument is less about "God", than the leftist's attempts to rid this country of every moral principle. As long as people believe in a "God", and the moral responsibility therein, as is found in every religion, the leftists will never be able to legally smoke, drop, shoot or otherwise ingest whatever drug they want, nor will they be able to legally abuse children, women, animals or themselves. They will not be able to steal, abuse, hurt, rape or kill at their pleasure as long as those "morals" are intact and the basis for ALL criminal and civil law in this country. One must ask themselves, why are the leftist in America, really so afraid of something as common sense as the "Ten Commandments"?

Perhaps the most stunning difference between those that believe in a "God" and those that believe in nothing, is that those that believe in nothing, demand (and file suit) (so) that everyone else, believe exactly in what they believe.

So in the end, the truth remains the truth, while the liberal rewrite of history, fails even the most cursory review with any degree honesty, truth or historical context.