Should California Recall Feinstein

[lligrd]

I'd certainly sign the petition now.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. sigh

Senators can't be recalled.

But that doesn't stop at least 5 people a day from proposing it here.

[lligrd]

5. Umm, In California They Can nt

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Ummm...

no they can't.

[CreekDog]

2. Can't recall a Senator --I won't take advice from someone who doesn't know that n/t

[lligrd]

4. Been A While But It Has Been Done

"Recall efforts against state legislators are slightly more common, but still unusual. Prior to Californias' 2003 recall election, the only sucessfull recall In California, where 107 recall efforts were initiated from 1911 to 1994, only four qualified for the ballot. A state senator was recalled in 1913. In 1914, one senator was recalled and another survived a recall attempt. Not until 1994 was another state recall election held, and the senator involved in that attempt - David Roberti - won 59 percent of the vote. In 1995, two Assembly members were recalled. Recall efforts against two Michigan state senators in 1983 were successful - for the first time in that state's history. An Oregon state legislator was recalled in 1988."

California

Who can be recalled: All

Signature Requirement: For statewide officers: 12% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled, 1% from each of 5 counties Others: 20% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled

Circulation Time: 160 days

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm

[Ghost in the Machine]

6. **OUCH** - *that's* gonna leave a mark....

[CreekDog]

44. care to take back your "ouchie"?

all the officials she referred to as evidence of recall of congresspeople were not congresspeople, but state officials.

[depakid]

7. Those are STATE legislators and officials

Not federal ones.

Sorry to say, but absent some serious criminal wrongdoing, California and the rest of the nation is stuck with this disgraceful person until the next election.

[Ghost in the Machine]

10. Technically they're ALL "State Legislators & Officials" - they are elected in their STATE

by *their* STATE voters. None of the rest of us get to vote for them. They represent *their* state at the Federal level.If they were true "Federal Officials", we'd all get to vote for them, just like voting for President.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Wow...

it's rare to see something THAT wrong posted with such conviction.

The House and the Senate make up the legislative branch of the FEDERAL government.

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. Yeah, it's digging deep, huh?...

Like I said.. "technically". Convictions have been overturned on minor technicalities, have they not? In my unwashed opinion, I think it's a technicality that *could* be argued successfully.

You said "The House and the Senate make up the legislative branch of the FEDERAL government." Now look below at the wording:


Table 1: Summary of State Recall Provisions for Statewide and Legislative Officers


Who Can Be Recalled
Signature Requirement
Circulation Time

Alaska
All but judicial officers
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
Not specified

Arizona
All
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
120 days

California
All

For statewide officers: 12% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled, 1% from each of 5 counties

Others

: 20% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
160 days
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It can be argued that US Senators & Representatives are included in the Legislative Officers part because the State Senators & Reps are covered under the Statewide Officers. It also says that ALL elected officials are subject to recall.

I'm no legal eagle, but it sounds like that's wide open to interpretation. Do you see where I'm coming from?

What's your opinion on this?

Edited for spelling: D'OH!

[MonkeyFunk]

14. "Statewide and Legislative"

that means statewide officers, such as the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Attorney-General, etc. Statewide legislative officers are members of the State House or Senate.

It's simply not open to interpretation. The US Constitution describes the process for electing and/or removing Senators, and recall is not an option.

They are federal officials - they are paid by the Federal Government, they vote on Federal issues.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. Monkeyfunk, please click the link that was provided to you from the OP and READ IT

If you had, you would have seen this and saved yourself some embarrassment:

California
All

For statewide officers: 12% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled, 1% from each of 5 counties

Others: 20% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
160 days



Nevada
All
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
60 days

New Jersey
All
25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled
Governor or U.S. Senator: 320 days

All others: 160 days

North Dakota
All but U.S. Congress
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
Not specified

Oregon
All but U.S. Congress
15% of total votes cast in officer's district for all candidates for governor in the last election
90 days
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now please explain to me and everyone else here the difference between All and All but U.S. Congress

Thanks

[MonkeyFunk]

75. Because it's totally irrelevant what state laws say

States can't impose term limits on their congresspeople - the Supreme Court has ruled that only the US constitution can decide these things, not states.

You're the only one embarrassing himself here.

[Ghost in the Machine]

77. This has NOTHING to do with imposing term limits. Please try to keep up in the future..

The point of a recall ISN'T to "impose term limits", it's an attempt to hold a public employee accountable for being derelict in their duties they were tasked(elected) to perform.

"Imposing term limits".... :eyes:

You're a funny one... :rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

84. I used term limits as an example

of a state-restriction on legislators that the USSC has found to be unconstitutional.

I didn't say term-limits = recalls. I was showing the similarities between the two issues.

The fact remains, you can't recall a US Senator, no matter how many smilies you use.

[CreekDog]

85. This is like shooting fish in a barrel, problem is, it gets boring doesn't it? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

90. The only fact that remains is that you are willfully ignorant and you REFUSE

to read and accept what is right in front of your nose:

Table 1: Summary of State Recall Provisions for Statewide and Legislative Officers


Who Can Be Recalled
Signature Requirement
Circulation Time


California
All
For statewide officers: 12% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled, 1% from each of 5 counties

Others: 20% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
160 days

Nevada
All
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
60 days

New Jersey
All
25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled
Governor or U.S. Senator: 320 days

All others: 160 days

North Dakota
All but U.S. Congress
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
Not specified

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't read, I can't help you or tell you what to do about it. The other simple fact is that you're wrong, you CAN recall a U.S. Senator. You may not be able to *enforce* it, but you CAN do it... no matter how many times you try to deny it....

[KharmaTrain]

148. Remember The SCOTUS In Florida?

They ruled that there has to be equal protection under the law regarding voting...state laws can and are superceded by Federal ones. Florida election laws meant nothing when the SCOTUS stepped in as this was a Federal matter. That's also the reason contested Congressional and Senetorial elections are certified by the House and Senate, not the state.

You are correct...the only way a Senator can be outsted from office is either through resignation or being expelled by a 2/3 vote of the entire House or Senate (all but impossible).

As you state, it's amazing the misinformation that's flung around this place...it's almost like Al Gore is running for President or something :sarcasm:

[CreekDog]

87. you are taking him out of context and misunderstanding why it is a valid example

Imposing term limits was not allowed for any reason because it would supersede the constitution and limit federal officeholding by a standard other than the US Constitution.

The point is that nobody can put limits on congresspeople that are in conflict or are beyond what the constitution provides for.

Thus, the example as illustration is perfectly valid.

Further, you are undermining your already incredibly deflated credibility by arguing as insubstantially and as mindlessly as you have been doing.

Look I was at a bar last night, but I stopped drinking well before I began posting.

[Ghost in the Machine]

91. "Look I was at a bar last night, but I stopped drinking well before I began posting."

It's too bad you didn't wait for the effects of the alcohol to wear off, too.

I don't drink, and don't need you implying that I do.

The simple fact is this: a recall provision in NO WAY alters context of the Constitution in not "setting term limits". If you take an incompetent out of office after one year, it has NO BEARING on the term of service of the successor who is voted in. Nothing has changed. Period. The replacement still has his/her Constitutional guaranteed to serve a 2 year term. And a 2 year term after that. Or a 2 year term after that.

BUT!... if that replacement becomes corrupt, inept or incapable of doing his/her job to the liking of his/her CONSTITUENTS, he/she *can* be subject to recall also. By the logic I'm getting out of you, someone can be elected to the U.S. Senate and come to his/her district the first day and prop his/her feet up on their desk and not do a damned thing to represent their constituents.... and there's nothing the constituents can do about? In many states that's true, but there's 18 states whose Constitution ALLOWS them to recall a member of Congress... I've shown you that plainly in black and white.

[CreekDog]

99. No, even Rep. Traficant had to be expelled from the House when he went to jail

You can't recall congresspeople. Once they are elected and seated, they are constitutionally granted the standard term of their house with only their congressional body having power to alter that.

And as we keep saying to you, two more things:

1) Feinstein won't lose a recall, this state is majority Democratic, but her approval rating has been high and she's been doing stuff like this for years.

2) The recall procedures in CA don't apply to congresspeople as was quoted below. The state or courts may not allow a recall against a US Senator to even be voted on.

And you should lighten up about my drinking comment. If I posted such inanity, my drinking would provide me plausible deniability.

[JackORoses]

145. actually it's totally irrelevant what you say in this regard

Ghost, don't waste your time trying to train a Monkey.
Remember, she was also dead certain that Al Gore did not deserve and would not receive the Nobel.

[CreekDog]

18. Not at all, Feinstein has no official capacity in the State of California

She is technically of less authority than the newest member of the assembly.

Again, the boldness with which you state falsehoods after being corrected is quite amazing.

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. I haven't been "corrected" yet, and the boldness with which you run

your smartassed fucking mouth is even MORE amazing.

Post a link to something saying a US Senator can't be recalled.

Chew on this while you're looking:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Introduction


Senators have to find a balance between voting their conscience and
voting as their constituents would like. If senators vote their
conscience too heavily, constituents tend to get angry. When this
happens, constituents may ask for a recall of their U.S. Senator.


Instructions


Difficulty: Challenging


Step One


Consider your location. Few states allow for a recall of a senator-
only 18 and the District of Columbia. If you're not living in one of
these states you have no constitutional rights to recall.


Step Two


Determine the grounds for recall. You'll need this information to make
your case to the population but in 7 of the 18 states specific grounds
are actually required. In these states, if your reasons don't measure
up, you won't be allowed to proceed with the recall.


Step Three


Get signatures. You'll need a petition to get a recall election. The
number of signatures is usually a percentage of the voters at the last
election but this differs by state.


Step Four


Prepare for a response. At some point during the process, the senator
will be notified that a petition for recall is being circulated. She
will then have a chance to respond to the allegations.


Step Five


Get voters to the recall election. Once the recall election is
granted, alert the community and get them out to vote. The ballot will
ask whether or not the senator should be recalled and the state may
hold an election at the same time to elect the next person for that
office.


Tips & Warnings


· The 18 states allowing for recall are as follows: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/2d7a5316fd5b4ea1/7d88716ebaeab6a3
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Another thing you should *REALLY* learn to do is click on a link that is provided to you and actually READ the whole thing before you run your smart mouth. If you did this, you would also have read the following:

New Jersey
All
25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled
Governor or U.S. Senator: 320 days

All others: 160 days

North Dakota
All but U.S. Congress
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
Not specified

Oregon
All but U.S. Congress
15% of total votes cast in officer's district for all candidates for governor in the last election
90 days
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now tell me fucking again that you CAN'T RECALL A US SENATOR!!

Learn to read, pal.... and to follow links. It'll make you look less stupid. Now tell me what the fuck ALL means on the California part of this...

[cali]

27. well, this should

end the debate. It probably won't, but it should. Thanks for providing this information. I didn't know you could recall a Senator. Now I do- at least in 18 states. Doesn't mean it's realistic, but it does mean it's possible. I don't see how, with the information provided, anyone could argue differently.

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. Thank you Cali...

:hi:

It's gonna be hard for them to take it all in and digest it, but there it is in black & white. We'll see what happens from here...

[cali]

30. eh, you know how it is on DU

people get entrenched in their positions sometimes, and just can't seem to back down. Really, you might consider doing this as an OP. It's pretty enlightening, and I bet a lot of people are like me, and thought you couldn't recall a U.S. Senator or Representative.

[CreekDog]

47. a lot of people like you, and like the founding fathers

you are correct actually. people don't have the power of recalls over seated federal congresspeople. The power of removal is with congress as outlined in the US Constitution, state laws and constitutions notwithstanding.

[CreekDog]

32. Oh, the internet said it can be done...must be true then...

The way to remove congresspeople is to have them impeached or removed by their respective house of congress, like Bob Packwood might have been, or I think Adam Clayon Powell.

And just because the constitution doesn't tell what's unconstitutional, so there is no quote to give you, it tells you what is constitutional.

And if I were as wrong as you were, I wouldn't be so angry and snotty about being corrected for it.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

38. state recall laws don't apply to federal office holders

you seem to not understand federalism.

my friend used to always tell me how Texas' constitution allowed them to leave anytime they wanted. And I said, in the USA, which constitution rules when a state and national constitution disagree? Texas civics teachings notwithstanding, she then told me that she guessed that the federal constitution would take precedent.

But you don't.

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. Your *friend* said she "guessed that the federal constitution would take precedent."??

That's your argument???? Excuse me while I

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

OMFG!! I'm pissing myself laughing at your silly ass!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[CreekDog]

43. Actually as lame as what she said was, she is more correct than you

In thinking that a state recall could remove a constitutionally elected federal officeholder in the Congress of the US.

To make it simple for you, state law does not trump federal law when it comes to removing congresspeople once they are seated. At that point, Congress has power. Actually congress has power even to seat them, but that's another matter we can save for later.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

53. i'm not going to get tombstoned for correcting your misinterpretation of the US Constitution n/t

[lligrd]

62. You Are And You're Even More Snotty

IMHO

[CreekDog]

45. Oh, you've been corrected, many times, you just don't accept it

Like a state law that says a 747 can fly to the moon...just because it's written in state law doesn't make it possible.

[Ghost in the Machine]

49. Project much??

[CreekDog]

52. Unless truth is debatable, you have been corrected

In the case of what the constitution says about who has the power to seat and remove congresspeople, that rests with congress as outlined in the constitution. you keep saying that state elections can overrule that. not so. you don't overrule the us constitution with a state law/constitution.

[Ghost in the Machine]

54. You're laughable! What are you, 12?? n/t

[CreekDog]

56. No, I'm a recording, replaying the truth over and over again for you

US CONSTITUTION > STATE CONSTITUTION/LAW

got it?

no?! i didn't think so.

[lligrd]

60. Kind Of Like Beating A Dead Horse Isn't It?

And isn't Feinstein one of those who helped kill it?

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lligrd]

12. Although It Is Not Likely To Be Successful

it would still send a message. And I believe California's stature might be broad enough to include Federal Senators. I know courts have ruled adversely but the process could be started.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Where in the US Constitution

is the provision for recalling Senators?

because if it's not in the US Constitution, nothing else matters.

[lligrd]

22. I Believe It Was Intentionally Left Out Of The Constitution

because they believed it was a States right issue.

[onenote]

70. I believe you are completely wrong. In fact, I know you are.

You "believe" it was left out because it was a states rights issue? Thanks for playing, but here's your consolation prize.

Recall was specifically considered and debated during the proceess of drafting and ratifying the Constitution but was rejected.

The view of Constitutional scholars on the matter is settled: no recall of federal officials is permitted by the Constitution.

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Recall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf

If you have something beyond your "beliefs" to rebut the arguments in the linked legal opinion, please provide it.

[CreekDog]

19. So, we're supposed to believe you now on this matter?

We're supposed to think you are correct in this statement while just moments ago you were quite insistent that it was possible.

Oh no, it does not work that way.

You don't shred your credibility and then try to convince people later to do something based on it.

Oh no.

Feinstein frustrates me to no end, but I'm not going to ally with people who will make me look stupid to get her out of office. Besides, Schwarzenegger would appoint her replacement should she resign or if the Senate removed her and his appointment would not vote any better than Feinstein.

And despite my frustration, Feinstein votes with Boxer most of the time. The rest of the time I have serious issues with, but she has been reelected by huge margins here in CA.

[lligrd]

24. Oh Please, Aren't You Being Just A Bit High And Mighty

about this. The issue has never been explicitly proved one way or another. It has been tested in courts but not fully. I admit it is unlikely to pass but the attempt alone would send a strong message.

Or we could just sit here and bitch on DU as our country goes down the tubes instead. I take it you prefer this method.

"Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of
recall of Members of Congress, other judicial decisions indicate that the right to
remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally
established term of office is one which resides in each House of Congress as
established in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and not in the
entire Congress as a whole, nor in the State legislatures through the enactment of
recall provisions."

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Recall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf

[CreekDog]

42. Read your own quotation...it says CONGRESS alone retains this power

That the offices in question are constitutionally granted.

"...the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally
established term of office IS ONE WHICH RESIDES IN EACH HOUSE OF CONGRESS AS
established in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and not in the
entire Congress as a whole, NOR in the State legislatures THROUGH ENACTMENT OF RECALL PROVISIONS."

The lack of Supreme Court rulings on this does not make it an open question, in fact it suggests that the Supreme Court has not intervened to offer a disparate view.

[lligrd]

58. Thanks For Answering My Question

I take it you would you prefer to do nothing but bitch? You are very good at it by the way.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Those are state officials

not US Senators.

The US Constitution is the only document that controls this, and there's no provision in it or recalling a US Senator.

[CreekDog]

16. dodo bird, she is not a state leglislator n/t

[CreekDog]

17. State Senator knucklehead, not a congressperson in the Senate

Paul Horcher-R was recalled in 1994 because he voted for Willie Brown-D for speaker of the California Assembly who won despite a Republican majority in that House.

Nevertheless, Horcher was holding a STATE OFFICE.

Feinstein is holding a FEDERAL OFFICE.

If you want this thread to be about her frustrating stands, fine, but then let it be about that, but instead you have to display total ignorance of the US Constitution.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

34. Texas' constitution says they can leave the union

Can they?

Federalism mister. Whether or not those states purport to give their citizens the right to recall congresspeople does not actually mean those people have that right.

[lligrd]

66. As Far As I Am Concerned They Can

if they take * with them.

[onenote]

72. Just because a law says "all" doesn't mean its enforceable. Its not

You believe that "all" must include federal officers as well as state legislative officials. And Idaho is one of the states listed on the chart you cite as allowing recall of "all" officials (except judicial officials)

But not so fast...back in the mid-1960s there was an effort to recall Senator Church of Idaho. And it was tossed by the court on the grounds that the Idaho recall provision was inconsistent with the US Consitution.

[Ghost in the Machine]

73. Please point to where I said it was *enforceable*. What I said was that

"yes, you CAN recall a U.S. Senator."

The issue isn't whether it's *enforceable*, the issue is whether it *CAN* be done or not.... and YES, it CAN be done. Whether or not the Senate recognizes it is irrelevant to the FACT that YES, it CAN be done. You CAN recall a U.S. Senator...

Look at it terms of Bill Clinton's impeachment. The House *voted* to impeach. They sent it to the Senate for trial. The Senate voted to convict him for lying, but also voted NOT to remove him from office.

Now..... was Clinton impeached, or was he not?

Simple answer: Yes, he was IMPEACHED. The fact that he wasn't REMOVED doesn't change the fact that he was IMPEACHED, does it?

The same goes for the states with recall provisions. The voters CAN recall a U.S. Senator and/or Congressperson. Whether the Senate or Congress decides to HONOR that recall is irrelevant. He/she was *still* recalled in his/her home state, by the voters of his/her home state, and it will hang around his/her neck in the next election cycle. It's not that hard to understand...

[onenote]

74. no, you can try. But you can't even get it to the ballot.

As in the case in Idaho, the recall never happened because it was blocked by the court.

You can circulate petitions and collect signatures to your heart's content, but you can't get it on the ballot.

And I'd love to see your reasoned analytical rebuttal of the following:
http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Recall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf

[Ghost in the Machine]

76. In the case of Idaho, I'll go with "lots of things have changed since 1967" for $500, Alex

As for the Lugar cite:

(from your link: page 9 under "Judicial Decisions")
"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:......"


The Supreme Court has never directly addressed this issue. People are making interpretations based on rulings, decisions and opinions of something totally different. They're looking at it "term limits" language. That's how *I'm* reading it, anyways.

If we followed this example, NO President could ever be impeached either, because it would interfere with their constitutionally protected *right* to serve two terms in office. Wouldn't you come to that conclusion? What you're missing is the fact that a recall isn't an attempt to change term limits, it's an attempt to hold an employee, who isn't doing his/her job to his/her constituents satisfaction, accountable.

Just to throw in a short snarky answer... Lugars little paper there was last updated in March, 2003... the link I provided to the National Council of State Legislatures was last updated in May, 2006. It's a newer precedent with newer opinions. :evilgrin:

:hi:

[CreekDog]

82. impeachment is a terrible example and wrong

impeachment is in the constitution and the process is spelled out specifically.

recall is not in the constitution and there is no process for it therein.

just stop, really, stop.

how many times have you taken the bar exam?

[CreekDog]

80. excellent point and stated concisely with a valid example

maybe we will get through to Ghost.

notice how his argument has migrated from removal to something more *advisory*?

[CreekDog]

79. Oh, if only you started with that argument

You were quite convinced that removal was possible.

Second, a recall effort against an elected congressperson might warrant an injunction barring the recall election from happening.

As far as I know, the recall provisions provide for removal of the official in the event the recall is passed. So, first, anything that seeks to remove a federal official without authority might be barred by the courts.

Second, it's not a recall if the officeholder is not removed.

This is not a situation like the House impeaching Clinton and removal not happening --that's how the constitution's process can work and it is stated that way.

The state recall provisions are not written as advisory --they are compulsory.

So now that your argument has migrated to something a tiny bit more defensible, I hope you see the flaws in your new argument too.

Perhaps what you are looking for is a popularity vote, no effect and by the way, based on Feinstein's performance in previous elections, is one that she will win handily --thus proving the folly of your effort. Her approval ratings are quite high in CA.

If this were Vermont, or only the Bay Area got to vote, you might be onto something, but it's not.

But you are simply not thinking this through, you are too busy calling me names at the expense of thinking and sticking to a verifiable argument.

[CreekDog]

83. you were referring to Senators as "State Officials" along with other state officers

You don't seem to be arguing that anymore.

I don't want to see you here complaining about any candidate's shifting positions. In 12 hours, your arguments have changed radically right here in this and the other related thread.

[Garbo 2004]

139. BTW, Clinton was not convicted of anything by the Senate.

Posted by Ghost in the Machine: "Look at it terms of Bill Clinton's impeachment. The House *voted* to impeach. They sent it to the Senate for trial. The Senate voted to convict him for lying, but also voted NOT to remove him from office."

Clinton was acquitted of both perjury and obstruction of justice: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/

[Lasher]

142. You are absolutely correct, Garbo

Bill Clinton has never been convicted of these or any other crimes. In fact, no one was ever convicted of committing any crime while serving in his administration, despite the Republican witch hunts by Ken Starr et al. that cost at least $91.3 million and lasted over 12 years.

Compare that with the current administration: http://mediamatters.org/items/200703080005

And with Saint Ronnie/Poppy: http://www.bartcop.com/convictions.htm

Oh, and did I mention that President Cheney has been twice convicted of DUI? And that Junior has been convicted once?

[lligrd]

26. Dodo Bird And Knucklehead??

I guess you aren't one of those against name calling.

[CreekDog]

33. Nope, but at least I didn't swear like SOME folks here

I think calling somebody a knucklehead or dodo bird is pretty tame by DU standards.

If the dodo bird comment really riles you, well, jeez, think before you post!

And being called dodo bird, is that so bad?

Frankly I'd rather be called a dodo bird or knucklehead than mistakenly post that you can recall congresspeople via referendum.

And even if you could, Arnie would appoint a Republican to replace Feinstein. How would the replacement vote --better? Not likely.

[lligrd]

59. Well Jeebus, If You Don't Think It Will Work

lets just sit here and call each other names instead.

The fact is, she can be recalled by California law and you are the one that is wrong. It may fail in the courts but wouldn't it be lovely to make the Supremes vote in favor of what they once considered a liberal.

[CreekDog]

81. i don't believe she can be recalled by California law

a recall includes removal. it's debatable whether a recall election could even proceed.

finally, she wouldn't lose one. heck, when she was mayor of SF they couldn't recall her, in liberal SF, she got like 70% of the vote back in the 1980s.

[tammywammy]

100. That's in reference to state officals only

http://sbcountymuseum.org/rov/general_info/pdf/SOS%20Procedures%20for%20Recall.pdf

Procedure For Recalling State and Local Officials
Prepared by the Office of the Secretary of State

Revised 2007

Recall is the power of the voters to remove elected officials before their terms
expire. It has been a fundamental part of our governmental system since 1911 and has
been used by voters to express their dissatisfaction with their elected representatives.

This publication examines the law of recall only as it applies to state and local
officials. It is divided into separate parts to help avoid confusion. Be sure to check the
Table of Contents and review all parts which are specific to the type of recall in which
you are interested.

Please note that the procedures described herein do not apply to federal officers.
The removal of U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senators is governed by the United States
Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 5 (2), which states "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." The President, Vice President and all civil officers of
the United States are removed through the process of "impeachment" which is
governed by the United States Constitution.

Unless otherwise indicated, all references in parentheses are to the California
Elections Code.

[Lucinda]

3. Sorry...seems the Sunday morning smackdown is in full force

:eyes:
I havent looked for the rationale for Feinstein supporting his appointment yet, but I'm going to try and find it....

[CreekDog]

20. Wanting Feinstein out is fine, but OP could at least be correct on the other stuff

And when corrected, the OP and others had to yammer quite a while before the correction actually registered with them.

[Ghost in the Machine]

29. Seems *you're the one yammering. You've been thoroughly proven wrong more than once

in this thread. You should apologize to the OP, and everyone on this board for having to read your misinformed bullshit mutterings.

[CreekDog]

31. which was the misinformation from me? if I'm wrong i'll correct it n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

35. Here, for starters

CreekDog (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-04-07 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. Can't recall a Senator --I won't take advice from someone who doesn't know that n/t
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then just about every other reply you've made in this thread....

Now correct yourself and apologize to lligrd...

Thanks

[CreekDog]

36. Term is six years according to the US Constitution (does anything overrule that?)

Article 1 of the US Constitution

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

[Ghost in the Machine]

39. "and if vacancies happen by resignation, **or otherwise**,"

read your own damned post, would you?

"and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies."

Your tripe is getting very boring, very quickly. Again, learn some reading comprehension skills.

Thanks

[CreekDog]

40. But only Congress can control its memberships once members are elected

And I'm sorry if the truth bores you. I don't like Feinstein myself, and that would have been a worthy topic, but instead, we are talking about this nonsense.

Remember how congress controls who is seated, they can even seat a member who had not won an election? Remember that the House had the power to seat Christine Jennings FL-13 instead of Buchanan, despite his "winning" that election?

State law doesn't take precedent here.

If you had a recall vote, Congress could decide to remove the officeholder for that reason, but they are not required to. This is not because the voters have the power of recall, but because Congress alone does.

[robcon]

46. I think you're stuck, Gjost in the Machine, and won't admit it.

Senators cannot be recalled by their voters. no matter how much you'd like that to be the case. Repeating an irrelevant quote...

"and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies."

doesn't prove anything.

Vacancies can happen by resignation, death or disability, and that is what the clause refers to. Only Congress can dismiss a member - the voters, once having elected a Senator, cannot recall that Senator.

[Ghost in the Machine]

50. I think YOU need to read the whole thread, robCON

You really, *really* should read the whole thread....

[robcon]

98. Desperation, ghost in the machine.

No facts, no evidence... you finally realize that you've been obnoxiously wrong all thread.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

106. Why do you need an amendment?

The constitution doesn't provide for it. Why would you need to amend the constitution to state so?

Do we need an amendment stating that the spouse of the President cannot veto legislation? No. Nor do we need a Supreme Court decision on it, because it's simply not provided for in the constitution, therefore, no reasonable person thinks it's possible.

The Supreme Court would only decide such an issue if it were a real issue, usually one where different courts gave different opinions.

But states can't recall federal legislators. There was a time in history when some states thought they might be able to, but they were wrong. As you are.

[Ghost in the Machine]

113. The Constitution doesn't prohibit it either.

Someone mentioned earlier that 'Congress seats itself and only *they* can unseat one another' (paraphrased). This may be true, in the sense that they *do* seat themselves & each other as far as their chairs and committees go, but the fact remains that their constituents elect them to begin with. Congress doesn't choose who is voted in in each state.

There have been 'conclusions drawn' on the readings and opinions of the 'term limits' debate, but they have NEVER addressed the issue of recall directly. Never... why?

As recently as March 21, 2006, the National Conference of State Legislatures has concluded that YES, you CAN recall a U.S. Senator.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says "you CANNOT recall a U.S. Senator". Period. The 10th Ammendment doesn't apply to recall, as there is no attempt to change the term limits guaranteed by the Constitution. It does not affect or change the term limits of the other Senator from the same state, nor does it affect the term limits of future Senators. Recall is a disciplinary action targeted at ONE individual, *not* the whole Senate. It affects only the one being recalled. Period. Nothing else changes....

The Constitution gives us the right to dissolve our government if it's become so corrupt that it becomes necessary to do so, ... so why wouldn't it give us the right to recall a single elected official for the same reason? Supporting war crimes (torture) is 'corrupt' enough for me... how about you?

Some people view the Constitution as open to interpretation while others think it's to be taken literally. Which do you believe?

[MonkeyFunk]

119. Please show me the clause

of the constitution that allows us to dissolve the government.

You really are embarrassingly ignorant of constitutional issues.

[Ghost in the Machine]

124. Ok, you win that one... I had a "duh huh" moment, that's in the Declaration of Independence

:blush:

See, I don't have a problem admitting I'm wrong, but when I feel I'm right, I'll fight to my last breath defending my position unless I am proven to be 100% wrong. In this case, I'm not wrong.


Let's look at Amendment 10

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Ok, first off, recall was not written into the Constitution, in fact it was specifically omitted, therefore the power WAS NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution.

Secondly, you have not yet provided a link to ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution that specifically states that "you CANNOT recall a U.S. Senator". That's a fact. Therefore, a state's right to a recall provisions IS NOT PROHIBITED *by* the U.S. Constitution.

The conclusion is simple: the right to recall is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

Now keep arguing otherwise...


*sigh*: more spelling... D'OH!

[MonkeyFunk]

126. You have repeatedly ignored my point

that the constitution does not have to prohibit something for it to be unconstitutional.


Does the first-spouse have the right to veto legislation?

Can a governor recall a senator?

Can the President fire a Speaker-of-the-House?

No, in all cases. And in all cases, the constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit it.

[Ghost in the Machine]

129. I ignore it because it's silly...

You might as well be asking "can my dog drive my car if I'm too drunk to"?

Nonsensical questions don't help you make your point.

"Does the first-spouse have the right to veto legislation?"

No, he/she has no right to do anything because he/she WASN'T ELECTED by the people... :eyes:

"Can a governor recall a senator?"

No, because a governor has no jurisdiction over a senator. That falls under the co-equal branches of government, even within a state. Executive, Judicial & Legislative

"Can the President fire a Speaker-of-the-House?"

No. Again, there's that pesky "co-equal branches" thingy again, and that just proves that you're wrong once again... because the Constitution DOES cover that with co-equal branches.


Anything else you need cleared up?

[MonkeyFunk]

130. You're continuing to be ridicuous

Your claim is that absent a clear constitutional prohbibition, anything is possible. I offered scenarios to disprove that.

The fact is, a Senator cannot be recalled. You're just tragically wrong, but it's fun to see you thrash.

[Ghost in the Machine]

132. You're continuing to be willfully ignorant. You must lead a VERY blissful life...

You haven't offered ANYTHING, period.

"Your claim is that absent a clear constitutional prohbibition, anything is possible. I offered scenarios to disprove that."

It's not *my* claim, it's the claim of the 10th Amendment:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How much clearer do you need?

[MonkeyFunk]

135. Yeah

good luck with that.


The big flaw in your argument is that the powers delegated to decide who serves in the Congress is in the constitution. The 10th Amendment doesn't even apply. But keep embarrassing yourself. It's funny.

Just to recap: First, senators were state officials. You got slammed down on that. Then you argued that recalls could work, but were unenforceable. You got slammed. Now you're making a lame 10th Amendment argument. It's hysterical.

[Baby Snooks]

51. I & R

I think any state that allows Initiative & Referendum allows recall of any elected official regardless of whether they are serving in a local, state, or federal office. All it takes is enough signatures.

[CreekDog]

55. State law allows it, but the US Constition does not make that power binding

You can hold that recall election, maybe, but a recall result is not the authority by which a congressperson is removed from office.

I'm sorry this seems so nuanced here, but it's not.

Congress does not have to listen to a state law in seating or removing members of their own house of congress.

[lligrd]

57. I Won't Take Advice From Someone Who Spells Constitution

the way * does.

[Baby Snooks]

64. It's not the spelling that counts...

It's not the spelling that counts. It's the pronunciation. And the Texas twang that covers up the "mispro-nun-saaaaashun."

Our president, well, their president, not mine, or yours I hope, talks just fine. We just don't understand Texas conservative English. Also known as WASP eubonics.

[lligrd]

65. I Am Sure * Won't Rest Until No Child Is Left Behind

speaking WASP eubonics as eloquently as himself.

[onenote]

71. will you take advice from constitutional scholars?

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Recall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf

[Ghost in the Machine]

61. I think your light finally lit up a little bit, dude...

"Congress does not have to listen to a state law in seating or removing members of their own house of congress."

Right.. Congress does not have to listen... but the State CAN hold a recall vote. Are you starting to see where we're butting heads here? You say "they CAN'T" ... State Constitution says "they CAN".. it *doesn't* say that Congress has to accept it, but by their Constitution, if the voters demand it, a U.S. Senator CAN BE RECALLED.

Even if the Senate *doesn't* honor the recall, it's still going to be on that Senator's record in his/her home state that he/she *was* recalled. It'll hang around his/her neck like an anchor in the next elections.

[lligrd]

63. Exactly And It Would Send A Big Message

to those on both sides of the aisle but especially those on our side/

[cali]

88. no it won't

it's not going to happen. It's simply a DU fantasy. In the real world, Feinstein is not going to be recalled.

[CreekDog]

89. Send a big message, when she wins with 60% of the vote?

What message would that send?

Might embolden DiFi to vote for another Bush nominee.

[JackORoses]

146. oh, so there can be a recall election...well surprise surprise

someone was wrong again

[CreekDog]

147. jury's still out on that one...it says provisions don't apply to federal officeholders n/t

[lame54]

67. well, that was very entertaining

what was this post about again?

[Ghost in the Machine]

68. Kittens!

:rofl:

[rucky]

69. They'll just appoint/elect another Republican. n/t

[Beelzebud]

78. Only if it means Darrell Issa will cry on national TV some more.

[MalloyLiberal]

86. God damn the ignorance

You can not recall a god damn senator! !!!

[Ghost in the Machine]

92. Learn to read... yes you can

[MalloyLiberal]

94. No you cannot..a governor..not a senator

And sheh as no chance of being recaled
whatsoever

[Ghost in the Machine]

95. yes you can...

Table 1: Summary of State Recall Provisions for Statewide and Legislative Officers


Who Can Be Recalled
Signature Requirement
Circulation Time


California
All
For statewide officers: 12% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled, 1% from each of 5 counties

Others: 20% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
160 days


Nevada
All
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
60 days

New Jersey
All
25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled
Governor or U.S. Senator: 320 days

All others: 160 days

North Dakota
All but U.S. Congress
25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled
Not specified

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"She has no chance of being recalled, whatsoever"?? Are you saying Californians endorse torture and war crimes?? I somehow don't think they do... at least not all of them, anyways... I think it should be tried and tested all the way to the Supreme Court in the states whose Constitutions have a recall provision. I wish to hell MY state had the provision, I'd definetly test it out... all the way to the top.

Ok...I'm done arguing about this for right now... I've proven my point too many times to keep having to do it over and over. It's right there in black and white. The National Conference of State Legislatures, which was updated in March 2006, says that U.S. Senators CAN be recalled in 18 states... quite simply, someone stated that "you *can't* recall a U.S. Senator, just like you stated it... but i've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that that assertation is WRONG....

Now... whether the Federal Level (House or Senate) *recognizes or honors* the recall... *that's* a different story, and a story I'm not arguing against...

[onenote]

102. still waiting for your rebuttal of the detailed CRS analysis of this question

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Recall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf

[Ghost in the Machine]

116. I've already rebutted it for you, but here, let me make it simpler so you comprehend:

CRS = "analysis"... analysis = "opinion"

NCSL = "analysis"... analysis = "opinion"

The difference?

CRS last updated May 2003. NCSL last updated March 2006

Conclusion?

NCSL = more up to date and more relevant...

Deal with it

[MonkeyFunk]

120. Your "analysis" only make sense

if there was some substantial change to the constitution between 2003 and 2006.

There wasn't.

You're just very very wrong.

[Ghost in the Machine]

122. Nope... you're very wrong

Not one of you have posted a link or snippet that shows that the Constitution says clearly that "you CANNOT recall a U.S. Senator or Congressperson". The simple fact is... you CAN'T post one, can you?

I've given you CLEAR wording that says you CAN recall a U.S. Senator, along with the link to the page. All you've given me in return is totally irrelevant information about "term limit" regulations. What you fail to understand is that a recall of ONE U.S. Senator DOES NOT constitute "changing term limits". Amendment 10 does not apply to recalls as it does with "term limits" legislation. Recalling ONE Senator had absolutely NO EFFECT on the terms of the other presently sitting or future, Senators. Period.

If you can't accept that, or understand it, I don't know what else to tell you other than "let Californians *try* to recall DiFi (or whomever) & see where it goes from there". So far, there is no CONCLUSIVE wording or ruling in the Constitution or from the U.S.S.C. that says "you CANNOT recall a U.S. Senator". If there is, please post it... keeping in mind that "term limits" legislation is irrelevant to this issue.

Thanks...

Edited: because spell check doesn't differentiate between "shoes" and "shows"... D'OH!

[MonkeyFunk]

123. The constitution nor the Supreme Court

have to say you can't do it.

The constitution doesn't provide for it.

The constitution doesn't say a Governor can recall a Senator - do you believe that's an "undecided" issue that needs to be adjudicated?

The constitution doesn't say the President can fire the Speaker of the House. Do you believe that's a question open for interpretation?

You're just wrong. It's now become humorous how much you're sticking to this.

[Ghost in the Machine]

125. Look at your answer, then look at Amendment 10 again

"The constitution nor the Supreme Court have to say you can't do it."

"The constitution doesn't provide for it."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short, if the Constitution does not provide for it, that means the same damned things as "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution". THEY DIDN'T DELEGATE IT TO THEMSELVES, NOR DID THEY PROHIBIT THE STATES FROM DOING SO. Therefore, it is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If you're too freakin' dense to understand that, don't even bother responding unless you've got a link or a citing from the Constitution specifically prohibiting a state from recalling a U.S. Senator. Again.. don't toss me some 'term limits legislation' BS either. It's time for you to put up or shut up, plain and simple. Provide a source to back up your position or move along because your willfull ignorance is wearing thin.

Come on, MonkeyFunk... post your empirical evidence that supports your claim. NOW! You CAN'T, can you? I've posted mine, it's time for you to pony up.

[MonkeyFunk]

128. Many people have posted their evidence

that a state can't recall a Senator - you're just ignoring it.

The fact is, it can't be done. It's never been done. Nobody with the sense God gave a mushroom thinks it can be done.

You're ignoring all the arguments against your position. You're not even trying to respond to them, and you're embarrassing yourself in the process.

[Ghost in the Machine]

131. Nope, wrong again...

people have posted things saying that states are prohibited from imposing or interfering with term limits of a U.S. Senator, nothing more, nothing less.

The only embarrassment I feel is for you for your failure to comprehend a relatively simple concept.

California's Constitution grants them the right to recall a U.S. Senator. The United States Supreme Court HAS NOT overruled it nor has it declared California's Constitution unconstitutional, therefore Californians CAN RECALL A U.S. SENATOR. Period. Provide proof showing otherwise....

Feel free to continue your delusional ravings without any proof to back you up, but I'm done with you for now. You have been given more than enough proof too many times that backs up my assertion, yet you provide nothing of substance, only shallow, false arguments that don't pertain to the subject being discussed. Go peddle your delusions elsewhere, they aren't working here...

PEACE!

Ghost

[Selatius]

136. It's not either-or. Unless California actually goes through a recall of a US Senator, it's ...

considered new legal ground because the question hasn't been explicitly addressed by the Supreme Court. I suspect the Supreme Court would assert the supremacy of the US Constitution over a state constitution. Once a federal senator has been elected and seated, the individual is entitled to six years, and a recall would interfere with that entitlement. It is there that I suspect the Supreme Court would decide in favor of federal power against state power.

Could a state recall a US Senator? They can try and succeed with the votes but that it would likely be considered non-applicable at the federal level, rendering it a symbolic gesture. We all know the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Edited to add: The information contained in post 101 indicates the recall provisions in California likely apply to state-level offices and not federal offices such as US senator.

[Ghost in the Machine]

138. Thank you for a reasonable, well thought out response....

That's the point I've been trying to get some of these people to understand from the beginning. The initial post I responded to simply stated "you CAN'T recall a Senator", which I think has been proven wrong. You *can*, in theory. I never said it would be successful, I never said it would be recognized or honored at the Federal level... all I said was "yes you can".

It would finally set a legal precedent once and for all. I *personally* don't think it could be argued that it interferes with term limits because it only affects the single person being recalled, not the whole of the Senate or House. You're not changing any laws, you're basically firing an ineffective or insubordinate employee.

It's not something that should be undertaken lightly, just like impeachment, and should have safeguards in place to prevent abuse or manipulation for political gain. In this case however, the constituents could make the case that waterboarding = torture, and torture = war crimes, so supporting and endorsing torture = complicity in war crimes. That's no trivial reason to remove an elected official.

Yes, it would be a largely symbolic gesture, but at least it's something besides the gruel we're spoon fed every day from these criminals in our government.

Symbolic gesture?? I'll take it!!!

Peace!

Ghost

[Garbo 2004]

141. Where in the CA Constitution does it provide for recall of US Senators?

That should be easy enough to find.

[onenote]

133. the comprehension problems are all yours. Or, to put it another way, what analysis?

The NCSL "analysis" is simply an itemization of state recall laws. If there is an analysis of the constitutionality of those laws in the NCSL document, I must have missed it. Calling the NCSL paper an "analysis" is like calling a grocery store ad a recipe.

Still waiting for you to rebut the CRS analyis with an actual constitutional analysis as opposed to a listing of laws.

[tammywammy]

104. No, you can't, see post 101

[cascadiance]

93. There ARE some areas where state laws apply to Senators!

We saw a clear example of that when Wyoming Republican senator Craig Thomas died after the 2006 election.

In most other states, a Democratic Governor could have replaced him with a Democrat of his choosing. In Wyoming there were stipulations where he needed to select someone from candidates put forth from the state legislature (and not have ability to directly appoint someone of his choosing).

So there ARE areas where states have the ability to have an effect on those representing them in federal offices in ways of their own choosing, and not just through methods mandated by federal law.

Now, on the issue of recalling Feinstein. I'd have to study more about California's ability to do that. It seems that there are some documents out there that point to the ability for them to do so, but many others say that states in general don't have the ability to recall congressional people. That was also why Brian Bilbray was in effect "untouchable" in terms of having his election reversed when Hastert jumped the gun in swearing him in to the House before all of the votes were counted. An appeals court judge here wasn't going to challenge Hastert's authority to allow for the ability to overturn this election.

I think in addition to questioning on whether you can recall Feinstein, there are a few other questions that need to be answered before pursuing such a strategy:

1) What set of California laws govern how she's replaced? Is it like what happened in the governor's race where you have a separate vote on who should replace her, or is it like the case in other situations where a senator leaves office prematurely that the governor appoints the replacement. I don't think we want Arnold replacing Feinstein.
2) Even if we can have a separate vote to offer who we want her replaced with, is there an "approval" process where the senate or the governor or other entities need to sign off on the election results before that person that is elected can take office? Depending on who these entities are (and whether they are under Democratic or Republican control) that also could be an issue to be concerned about. If this person is "rejected", I suspect that the "fallback" would be to have the governor appoint the replacement, which, once again would fall into Schwarzenegger's hands.

Now, perhaps that makes Schwarzenegger the key issue here. He seems to be trying to be on a lot better behavior now than he was with the special election in not being overly partisan Republican. On the other hand, if there are some key issues that he exposes some very partisan and potentially "recallable" agenda here, then perhaps that would be the first step before going after Feinstein.

As for going after Feinstein, I think there might be some justification for getting rid of her. It is just whether the Democrats want to do so or not now. Perhaps in 2009, if the Dems gain a stronger majority in the senate where losing her doesn't affect the control of the senate, and it then is viewed that losing her votes to a Republican isn't as critical then, they might go after her then. That way, in the subsequent election, perhaps a true progressive can be used to win back the seat in 2012. But now, unless a recall election can specify who replaces her, or one can recall Arnold first, she presents a problem, even if you can find a way to "remove" her.

I have another post on my theories on the subject here, that perhaps she really was working against Angelides in this election when her campaign co-chair worked on Arnold's campaign as well as insurance from a Democratic Senate getting rid of her if they had Angelides in at governor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3682868&mesg_id=3682868

[Garbo 2004]

140. State legislatures have latitude in how they select their Senators, that's in the Constitution. n/t

[blues90]

96. I'm a bit surprised she won again in the first place

[seemslikeadream]

97. It's all about those military bases

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2202742&mesg_id=2202742

[tammywammy]

101. She cannot be recalled

http://sbcountymuseum.org/rov/general_info/pdf/SOS%20Procedures%20for%20Recall.pdf

Procedure For Recalling State and Local Officials
Prepared by the Office of the Secretary of State

Revised 2007

link


Recall is the power of the voters to remove elected officials before their terms
expire. It has been a fundamental part of our governmental system since 1911 and has
been used by voters to express their dissatisfaction with their elected representatives.

This publication examines the law of recall only as it applies to state and local
officials. It is divided into separate parts to help avoid confusion. Be sure to check the
Table of Contents and review all parts which are specific to the type of recall in which
you are interested.

Please note that the procedures described herein do not apply to federal officers.
The removal of U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senators is governed by the United States
Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 5 (2), which states "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." The President, Vice President and all civil officers of
the United States are removed through the process of "impeachment" which is
governed by the United States Constitution.

Unless otherwise indicated, all references in parentheses are to the California
Elections Code.

[MonkeyFunk]

107. Thank you TammyWammy

going by Ghost's time-stamp criteria, this document, dated 2007, overrides anything else he can offer.

[tammywammy]

109. I'm sure he'll come up with something

:eyes:

No matter how many times certain people are told, they just don't get it. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[lligrd]

110. From The Same Publication

"CAUTION
This booklet is for general information only and does not have the
force and effect of law, regulation, or rule. In case of conflict, the
law, regulation, or rule will apply."

[tammywammy]

111. Yeah, it's an excellent reference, but you're ignoring the important part

The removal of U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senators is governed by the United States
Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 5 (2), which states "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."

And this is from the SOS of California, they're saying that removal of US Senators/Representatives is up to the Constitution.

[Ghost in the Machine]

114. You're missing the important part that says that this is how CONGRESS

can expel a member. In a recall, CONGRESS isn't expelling the member, their CONSTITUENTS are. They aren't petitioning Congress to do ANYTHING. They are following their State Constitution, which provides the *voters* with a recall provision as a way to reign in a rogue elected official. Congress has NO SAY SO in who a state elects as their representatives, providing that they meet the qualifications set forth by the Constitution as far as residency, age requirements, etc., etc....

In simpler terms, Connecticut voters can't demand that Joe Lieberman be relieved of his committee chairs that he holds, but if they had a recall provision, they could damned sure demand that he be recalled. Again, whether or not they recognize the recall at the Federal Level is a whole different argument, but YES, California CAN recall a U.S. Senator. Period. If they can't, someone needs to tell California, Colorado and four other states that their State Constitution is unconstitutional:

"In the six states where the election for a successor is held simultaneously with the recall election, the election is handled in two ways. In California and Colorado, the first question on the ballot is whether the official should be recalled. Voters are then asked to vote for a candidate for the office; the official who is the subject of the recall may not be listed among these candidates candidate."

[tammywammy]

115. As soon as a state tries to recall a senator

Then the courts will say that they can't do it. Just because a state has it on the law books, doesn't make it so.

The Constitution doesn't allow recalls. The federal Constitution triumphs all state constitutions. Period. And more importantly, the Supreme Court wouldn't rule any other way, than to say that recalls aren't allowed.

[Ghost in the Machine]

117. Tammy, I can see *and* understand your point. Really I do....

What I'm saying is that you CAN recall a U.S. Senator in California, per California's Constitution and/or Electorial Laws & Regulations. The Federals *don't* have to recognize it, but it can still be done. Is the U.S. Supreme Court going to step in and stop a recall before it gets on a ballot, or are they going to wait to see the results of said ballot?

Wouldn't the U.S.S.C. basically have to declare California's Constitution unconstitutional to stop a recall vote before it got on a ballot? Since the provision is on their books, doesn't that mean it's been approved in the California Supreme Court? Or has it not been that far yet?

All in all, it would be interesting to see California *try* to recall a U.S. Senator just to see how it would play out. With the deck stacked right now with Bush loyalists, we pretty much *know* how it would go... but it would still be interesting to watch it play out.

[KingFlorez]

105. No

Even if it was possible, Dianne would win big because she's a good Senator and popular. Granted, I don't like all her votes, but she's nowhere near as bad as the Republicans.

[Hippo_Tron]

112. She needs to be off the judiciary committee, that's for sure

[Ghost in the Machine]

118. What you bring up is a good example of what we're actually arguing against. You see,

*this* is what they mean when they say "only Congress can expel a member from their seat because Congress seats themselves".

Voters cannot demand that she be removed from the judiciary committee because voters don't decide *who* chairs and sits on those committees... they seat themselves in these committees. Congress members either appoint, or vote amongst themselves, who chairs the committees.

However, the voters *do* decide who represents them in Congress by voting in elections. Otherwise we'd have Congress Critters who just kept appointing themselves and/or their cronies and we'd have no need for elections.

[MonkeyFunk]

121. Yes

they decide in elections. The US Constitution doesn't allow them to remove members in the middle of a term.

I can't believe you're sticking by your argument.

[Swamp Rat]

127. Feinstein is not human.

:)

[upi402]

134. What, was somebody orally manipulated?

:evilgrin:
I mean Clinton almost destroyed life on earth afterall!!!!
:wow:
But yeah, she needs to retire for family reasons.

[NoodleyAppendage]

137. Better yet. Why don't they demand that she be investigated for her dirty defense industry deals?

Feinstein is tainted goods. I'm convinced that she's being blackmailed by the criminals in the WH to tow their line. Best thing for her and the country would be a serious investigation of her conflict-of-interest deals with the defense industry, which results in her willingly stepping down. She's a disgrace to the Dem party.

J

[NuttyFluffers]

143. well, considering "The Supremes" ignored state constitutional law in 2000, this is moot.

y'know, the 9th and 10th amendments have been pretty thoroughly ignored for quite a while now, sadly and much to our great loss. but that's OK, we're handing over plenty others in rapid succession, so we'll have bigger things to worry about soon enough.

lah-tee-dah... :7

[deacon]

144. Zell Feinstein n/t