Some say that US senators, whose terms are more problematic than representatives who are up every two years, cannot be recalled. This is not true. The legislative history of the federal official recall is thin. Two state courts have ruled that their senators cannot be recalled, Idaho and New Jersey, but the opinions have been weakly worded and and argued, and anyway do not apply to other states. The issue of recall of federal officials is ripe to be revisited in this political climate.
The Founders have given us potent tools to establish our right to recall, which is a peaceful and incremental measure compared to the right they gave us to "abolish" a government which has become "destructive" of our "unalienable rights."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... -- Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776."
Jefferson indicated clearly that the Right to a Jury Trial, contained in the Sixth Amendment, was among the "unalienable rights." Jefferson said:
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
Logic dictates that the power to recall senators and congressmen resides in the people. It can be inferred by the existence of the Constitutional provisions for expulsion from either house by vote. It would be absurd to conclude that the Founders intended for congressmen to be more responsible to their colleagues than to the very people they represent. If the Founders had intended for representatives to be able to serve out their terms in the face of any opposition short of criminal conviction, the expulsion clauses would not have been included.
Surely a state may exercise the same power either by direct recall by the state legislature or by a mechanism enacted by that legislature to do so. The Declaration of Independence, which is a founding document which is primary even to the Constitution, gave the people the "right" to "alter or abolish" any government which has become "destructive" of the "unalienable rights" it was instituted to preserve. Mere recall is thus a measured response to a government which has threatened us with kidnap and even execution. If we have the right to "alter or abolish" the government if necessary, certainly the Founders would not have objected to mere recall laws.
The Treasonous 383 have egregiously and knowingly violated their Oath of Office. The Oath of Office of the U.S. senator and congressman, required by the Constitution before assuming duties, as well as any American military officer, is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The Oath makes no mention of defending territory, the president, or anything other than the Constitution. The Founders intended that defense of the Constitution come before all else.
Thomas Jefferson said: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor
ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the
principles of its
constitution." By violating their Oath to protect
and defend the United States Constitution, these senators have made
themselves "domestic enemies" of the Constitution, and can no longer be
said to represent us.
18 states presently have recall laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. State legislatures can pass them in states which do not.
[MODEL RECALL LAW, WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I.]
The Treasonous 383
SENATE: YEAs ---86
RELATED POST: "Why a Constitutional Law Professor Should Not Sign an Unconstitutional Military Detention Bill"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
6
6
