firstpatriots@yahoo.com
ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION...THE GATHERING STATES HAVE JURISTICTION OVER CONGRESS IF ONLY THE STATES WILL GATHER .
And the unified states are the only entity who do have this authority.
Congress will NEVER vote for term limits because a majority will seldom create self limiting rules against itself.
FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT THIS ACTION
The Articles of Confederation had the recall amendment in Article V and it needs to be reinstated to balance the power of Congress with that of the States. The Constitution limits the power of Congress and has inherent checks and balances to control Congress should their intentions become subversive to the freedom and activities of the States and their constituents’.
Congress has been using the judiciary to subvert states right by disallowing any recall action of itself. Congress appoints the judiciary and should not also use its own self appointed judges to allow itself to create its own immortality, against the wishes of its constituency.
ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION states that 2/3rds of the States can ratify a new amendment with the process of ratification to be according to the interpretation by the States who are ratifying the new amendment.
ARTICLE V OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATIONstates the following; For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the Legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State TO RECALL ITS DELEGATES, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.
ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION states the following; All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
What is the defination of ENGAGEMENT? Is it an agreement between two people, two entities? Could an article of the Articles of Confederation be an engagement between two entities and people , such as the constitution and the people, states or government? If a clause is not SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED does it SURVIVE?
Because some of the Articles of Confederation were supported, unless specifically rescinded Article V of the Confederation may carry on with an added expulsion rule added in the Constitution. This original significance may indeed show the intent of the founders to necessitate THAT THE STATES control Congress. There is a Constitutional theory that the omitting of the recall at the Constitutional Convention may have been in an effort to seek Constitutional ratification without undue squabbling, and with godspeed and its lack may be a defect to be cured.
But the Constitution has a defect which has allowed Congress to use the Federal Judiciary, all appointed by Congress, to become superior to the states. Congress is using this power to harm the states, which is against the intent of the constitution, created by the States
Congress has used the (dormant) commerce clause which was designed to maintain interstate trade by the states as a way to control, tax or inhibit trade between and within the states by using the judiciary to subvert the constitutional intent.
Specific recall provisions are not in this constitution. However, recall provisions of Congress WERE ADOPTED in the Articles of Confederation, under Section V.
FROM THE “RECALL OF LEGISLATORS” REPORT FOR CONGRESS 2003
This report was prepared by the American Law Division, Congressional Research Service-An arm of Congress working through a division of the Library of Congress. The following are excerpts along with relevent comparative editorials.
PAST CONGRESSIONAL RECALL PROVISIONS FROM AMERICAN HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
“The Articles of Confederation of 1777 had contained a provision for recall of United
States Senators by the state legislatures. Section V stated that the state legislatures would
have “a power reserved in each state to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time
within the year and to send others in their stead ....” At the Constitutional Convention at
Philadelphia, “Randolph’s Propositions” of May 29, 1787 proposed for recall of popularly
elected representatives, but this was not accepted by the Convention.
I Elliot, Debates onthe Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 143-144, 172 (1888).”
26 Thomas E. Cronin, Direct Democracy, The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall,
at 129 (Harvard University Press 1989).
(editorial.) The Constitutional Convention rejected those same provisions, instead by SEEKING OTHER MEANS OF RECALL IT SOUGHT TO BE EFFECTIVE, through expulsion, impeachment and term limits, in an effort to seek RATIFICATION of the Constitution, but not in an effort to remove the mechanism for rapid removal of members of Congress, if necessary.
Therefore it may be concluded that the original framers did indeed wish there to be an effective recall mechanism because it was in the Articles of Confederation, in fact, by not actually RESCINGING, may have had the original intention that it be CONTINUED, but created an unknowing defect in the Constitution in order to seek a RAPID RATIFICATION of the Constitution at the 1st Constitutional Convention.
YET, the recall mechanism does have its supporters, including those in the Senate, Congress and the States.
(To text)
As early as 1807, a Senate Committee examining the
question of the Senate’s duty and broad authority to expel a Member, noted that such
duty devolves to the Senate not only because of the express constitutional grant of
authority, but also as a practical matter because the Constitution does not allow for
a “recall” of elected Members of Congress by the people or the State. The
Committee noted specifically that the Constitution had set out numerous provisions,
qualifications and requirements for Members of Congress to prevent conflicts of
interest and to assure a certain degree of fealty to constituents, but did not give a
Member’s constituency the authority to recall such a Member
“The spirit of the Constitution is, perhaps, in no respect more remarkable
than in the solicitude which it has manifested to secure the purity of the
Legislature by that of the elements of its composition .... Yet, in the midst of all
this anxious providence of legislative virtue, it has not authorized the constituent
body to recall in any case its representative.22”
22 II Hinds’ Precedents, supra at §§ 813-815; Remick, The Power of Congress in Respect
to Membership and Elections, Vol. I, pp. 531-532 (1929).
Since the ratification of the Constitution, the people, the Senate, the states and even Congress, has criticized the lack of a proper recall mechanism. Yet others in Congress have sought to reject any attempt of control of itself from the states, using conflicting arguments. States for ratification.23 The ratifying process in the States evidences debate over this lack of inclusion of a recall provision. Luther Martin of Maryland, for example, in an address delivered to the Maryland Legislature, criticized the proposed Constitution because the Senators “are to pay themselves, out of the treasury of the United States;
And are not liable to be recalled during the period for which they are chosen.”24 In
New York, an amendment was defeated in the 1788 ratifying convention which
would have allowed the state legislatures to “recall their Senators ... and elect others
in their stead.”25 This history indicates an understanding of the Framers and ratifiers
of the Constitution that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from
the United States Congress existed under the Constitution as ratified. As noted by
an academic authority on the mechanisms of “direct democracy”:
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered but eventually rejected
resolutions calling for this same type of recall [recall of Senators by the state
legislatures as provided in the Articles of Confederation]. ... In the end, the idea
of placing a recall provision in the Constitution died for lack of support — at
least from those participating in the ratifying conventions. The framers and the
ratifiers were consciously seeking to remedy what they viewed as the defects of
the Articles of Confederation and some of their state constitutions, and for many
of them this meant retreating from an excess of democracy.26
26 Thomas E. Cronin, Direct Democracy, The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall,
at 129 (Harvard University Press 1989).
The recall of United States Senators or Representatives had been considered
during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution, but recall provisions were
rejected and were not included in the final version of the Constitution sent to the convention
(ed.) Congress uses Federal Judges, appointed by Congress to reject any claims of the states to issue control over Congress, by rejecting the Constitutionality of the states to govern themselves. State courts have found that the states are superior to Congress and may recall their representatives of Congress. However, those judges, controlled by Congress have overridden those rulings and created supremacy of their own.
(to text)
Judicial Decisions.
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.
In Burton v. United States,27 the Supreme Court ruled that a
provision of federal law which on its face purported to make one convicted of bribery
“ineligible” to be a United States Senator, could not act as a forfeiture of a Senator’s
office, since the only way to remove a Member under the Constitution was by the
Senate exercising its authority over its own Members:
The seat into which he was originally inducted as a Senator from Kansas could
only become vacant by his death, or by expiration of his term of office, or by
some direct action on the part of the Senate in the exercise of its constitutional
powers.28
The concept that the States do not, individually, possess the authority to change
the terms or qualifications for federal officers agreed upon by the States in the United
States Constitution, has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in modern case law.29
The Supreme Court found in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, that the authority
of the individual States over the elections of federal officials under Article I, § 4, cl.
1, is not a broad authority for an individual State to substantively change the
qualifications, length or number of terms of federal officials established within the
United States Constitution.30
The Court in U.S. Terms Limits, Inc. noted that the
States do retain significant sovereign authority in many areas, but that the States
transferred and delegated certain powers and authority to the national government
within the instrument creating that entity, the Constitution. With respect to powers
in relation to the federal, national government, and any powers deriving exclusively
from and because of the existence of that national government, the States must look
to the United States Constitution for grants or delegation of authority to them.31
With respect to the Tenth Amendment and the “reserved” authority of the States,
the Court clearly explained that determining qualifications and terms for federal
offices, created within the Constitution, were “not part of the original powers of
sovereignty that the Tenth Amendment reserved to the States,” and thus whatever
authority States have over the terms, qualifications and elections of federal officers
must be a “delegated” authority from the Constitution.32 Such authority could not be
a “reserved” power of the States, since the States could not “reserve” a power it did
not have as part of its original sovereign authority, that is, a power relative to
something which did not exist before its creation in the Constitution:
Petitioners’ Tenth Amendment argument misconceives the nature of the right at
issue because that Amendment could only “reserve” that which existed before.
As Justice Story recognized, “the states can exercise no powers whatsoever,
which exclusively spring out of the existence of the national government, which
the constitution does not delegate to them .... No state can say, that is has
reserved, what it never possessed.” 1 Story § 627.33
Re-emphasizing this meaning of the Tenth Amendment’s “reserved” authority vis-avis
federal officials, the Court later explained in Cook v. Gralick:
The federal offices at stake “aris[e] from the Constitution itself.” ...
Because any state authority to regulate election to those offices could not precede
their very creation by the Constitution, such power “had to be delegated to, rather
than reserved by, the States.”34
The United States Constitution expressly establishes the exclusive qualifications
for congressional office, sets the specific length of terms for Members of the House
and for Senators, and places the authority within each House of Congress to judge the
elections and qualifications of, and to discipline and remove, its own Members.35
These provisions of the United States Constitution, with respect to federal officials,36
have supremacy over State laws and provisions, and State laws in conflict with such
constitutional provisions have been found by the courts in the past to be invalid.37
Although the language of some State recall laws might be broad enough to include
Members of Congress, or might even explicitly include such federal officers, such
statutes would not appear to be effective in overriding the provisions of the United
States Constitution with regard to terms of office, elections and removal of Members
In interpreting state recall statutes, the Attorney General of Wisconsin did note
in an opinion on May 3, 1979, that an administrative agency, the state election board,
upon presentation of a valid petition to recall a Member of Congress under the
Wisconsin Constitution, had no authority, in itself, to adjudicate and reject such
petition without a ruling from a court.39 However, in a specific ruling from a court,
a federal court in 1967 dismissed a suit which attempted to compel the Idaho
Secretary of State to accept petitions recalling Senator Church of Idaho. In the
unreported decision, the court found that Senators are not subject to state recall
statutes, and that such a state provision is inconsistent with the provisions of the
United States Constitution.40
In Oregon, the Attorney General similarly ruled in an opinion on April 19, 1935,
that the State’s recall provisions could not apply to a Member of Congress, who is
not actually a State official, but who holds his office pursuant to the United States
Constitution and is a federal constitutional officer. The opinion found that such
recall provisions would interfere with the Congress’ exclusive constitutional
authority over the elections and qualifications of its own members, noting that the
“jurisdiction to determine the right of a representative in Congress to a seat is vested
exclusively in the House of Representatives ... [and] a Representative in Congress is
not subject to recall by the legal voters of the state or district from which he was
elected.”41
27 202 U.S. 344 (1906).
29 U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510
(2001).
30 514 U.S. at 832-835.
31 514 U.S. at 800-802. The Court stated: “As we have frequently noted, ‘[t]he States
unquestionably do retain a significant measure of sovereign authority. They do so, however,
only to the extent that the Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and
transferred those powers to the Federal Government.’ Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan
Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 549 (1985); ... see also New York v. United States, 505 U.S.
144, 155-156 (1992).” 514 U.S. at 801-802. (Emphasis in original)
32 514 U.S. at 802.
33 514 U.S. at 802. “[A]s the Framers recognized, electing representatives to the National
Legislature was a new right, arising from the Constitution itself.” 514 U.S. at 805; Cook v.
Gralike, supra at 522.
34 531 U.S. at 522.
35 Article I, § 2, cl. 2, and Article I, § 3, cl. 3; Members of the House are to be “chosen every
second Year by the People of the several States ....” (Article I, § 2, cl. 1), and Senators are
chosen for terms of “six Years” each. Article I, § 3, cl. 1, and Seventeenth Amendment:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected
by the people thereof, for six years ....”; Article I, § 5, clauses 1 and 2.
36 Members of Congress are federal officials, not State officers, and owe their existence and
authority solely to the federal Constitution. As explained by the Supreme Court:
In that National Government, representatives owe primary allegiance not to the
people of a State, but to the people of the Nation. As Justice Story observed,
each Member of Congress is `an officer of the union, deriving his powers and
qualifications from the constitution, and neither created by, dependent upon, not
controllable by, the states ....’ 1 Story § 627. Representatives and Senators are
as much officers of the entire union as is the President. 514 U.S. at 803.
37 United States Constitution, Article VI, clause 2. See, for example, with respect to
qualifications for candidates to federal office, Danielson v. Fitzsimmons, 44 N.W. 484
(Minn. 1950)(state law prohibiting felon from running for congressional office found
invalid); Ekwall v. Stadelman, 30 P. 2d 1037 (Ore. 1934); Shub v. Simpson, 196 Md. 177,
76 A.2d 332, appeal dismissed, 340 U.S. 881 (1958), (state statute requiring congressional
candidates to reside in congressional district found invalid
38 Biennial Report and Opinions of the Attorney General of the State of Oregon 313, (April
19, 1935): “Should this [state] constitutional amendment be so construed as applying to the
recall of a Representative in Congress it would to that extent be inoperative.” If a recall
election for a Member of Congress were actually held under a state provision, it is most
likely that the ultimate effect would be “advisory” only, having perhaps significant political,
but not legal, import.
39 68 Opinions of the Attorney General 140, 146, 148 (Wisconsin 1979): “In the foregoing
discussion I have attempted neither a resolution nor a comprehensive analysis of the
constitutional issue. Enough has been said, however, to show that the question of
constitutionality is one that is arguable and open to debate. The Wisconsin Supreme Court
has provided guidance to administrative bodies called upon to perform their ministerial
duties under circumstances raising doubts as to the constitutional validity of the result. ...
Accordingly, in the event petitions for the recall of a United States senator are presented to
the Elections Board, you should proceed to carry put your responsibilities ... unless and until
directed otherwise by a court of law.”
40 See New York Times, October 1, 1967, p. 47, col. 1.
41 Biennial Report and Opinions of the Attorney General of the State of Oregon 313 (1935).
See also opinion and brief of Senator Walter George, then Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Privileges and Elections, reaching the same conclusion as to the lack of
constitutional authority of a State to terminate or cut short by recall the constitutionally
established term of a United United States Senator or Representative, 79 Congressional Record
10688-89 (July 3, 1935).
(ed.) THE PEOPLE MAY USE A POPULAR VOTE
There are many theories about the Constitution that state a popular vote is not precluded. However, while specific language is not evident in the Constitution, it may be within the Declaration of Independence.
(tex t) If determinate answers to these and other questions exist, they lie outside Article V,
narrowly construed--in other provisions of the Constitution, in the overall structure and
popular sovereignty spirit of the document, in the history of its creation and amendment,
and in the history of the creation and amendment of analogous legal documents, such as
state constitutions. And once we consult these sources, we will find that we are in fact not
at sea. The very sources that render Article V rules determinate also clarify the equally
determinate rules for People-driven, majoritarian amendment outside Article V. By 1787,
at least, the legal rules underlying Jefferson's right of the People to alter or abolish were
no murkier or more mysterious than those encoded in Article V.
Yet one needs not to look into a murky Article V but to the Declaration of Independence for the answer.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
Thomas Jefferson
THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT
Congress had originally created a recall provision in the Articles of Confederation, Section V.
The Constitutional Convention did not include that section, possibly for expediency-possibly because it was the original intent for Section V of the Articles of Confederation TO BE CONTINUED to the Constitution using the article VI of the Constitution as a continuance of the Articles of Confederation.
Since the ratification of the Constitution, the people, the Senate, the states and even Congress has criticized the lack of a proper recall mechanism in the Constitution for Congress.
States have sued Congress to recall its representatives
The Congressional appointed judiciary has rebuffed all recall suits in favor of Congress
Congress now has a filibuster proof majority
States have lost their rights
There is now a threat to the Constitution, States rights and US and Constitutional sovereignty.
Recall should be reinstituted and there could be no better time than now.
BUT THE STATES CAN CREATE A RECALL OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS...
This can be accomplished by a Constitional amendment because a state sponsored recall amendment actually INCREASES THE POWER of the states, while REDUCING the power of Congress.
THIS "GATHERING OF THE STATES" CAN PUT IMMEDIATE FEAR INTO CONGRESS and may stop some healthcare votes or other violations of freedoms.
Some are concerned about a Constitutional Convention. However, there is little description in the Constitution of exactly what that would be. Some say that a very limited Convention might be held to cover only one item-A RECALL AMENDMENT, without opening up the entire Constitution to change.
In either case-this movement could strike IMMEDIATE fear in the hearts of Congress and may be able to stop a few votes...Possibly enough to stop healthcare, cap and trade and other bills pending.
HOWEVER, the Constitution provides for 7 years to complete an amendment. During these 7 years, the power of the states UNIFYING against the FEDERAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS is what may change some votes NOW possibly without the actualy amendment ever being ratified.
THE FOLLOWING IS A PROPOSAL TO RECALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BY AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
THIS INCLUDES A STRATEGY LETTER OF PROCLAMATION, Q AND A AND CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT.
The purpose of a recall authority is not to actually recall politicians. The power of the recall is to bring the parties to the table and provide resolution to disagreements between constituents and politicians. Few actual recalls are ever completed. Even California has had less than 5 successful recalls in over 100 years. It’s all about compromise and stopping votes and bills from passing.
A new recall amendment need not be ratified to be immediately effective. If Congress see’s the states joining together in unity to create the 28th AMENDMENT TO RECALL CONGRESS, some of them may take note and may try to slow things down from the rapid pace they are on.
STRATEGY
This is a very simple strategy. State legislators join with one or two states into an agreement / proclamation like the one below. This agreement may not even have to be signed by anyone. A private memorandum of agreement with a state seal on the document could be used instead.
This is then publicized and promoted. In of itself it may not make a difference, but in context with all this is going on to stop this it may help. But it is new, it will get press, it will be debated and discussed and it can get a life of its own.
This can be done NOW. There is no need for lawyers, debates and perfection. We can launch this now and figure out the details later. We can use this to take them off their stride by showing them that the only authority with real power is the unified states.
As the process develops and more states join the movement, constant media awareness will keep it on the forefront of those in Congress. Hopefully a few Blue Dog Democrats will take note and this idea will separate enough votes from the Democrats to stop the bills of Healthcare, Cap and Trade and treaty’s working their way through Congress, basically unchallenged.
Any Constitutional Convention can take up to seven years to be held and no one can really know what shape it would take, it could even be cancelled. The strategy is to defeat these votes now. If the process never gets ratified what difference does it make if these bills are defeated.
THE STATES DO HAVE POWER IF ONLY A FEW OF THEM JOIN TOGETHER.
You can use the power of the states gathering to oppose Congress instead of letting Congress have their way. States can show that they will stand up for themselves and that they are not the weak sister of Congress.
This strategy is so simple; it is a blind resolution that shows the states are gathering. It carries no signatures and may have a positive effect. Publicity can be handled by a third party. Worst case is that it cannot hurt. Best case is that it changes a few votes and all this legislation stops, and in 2010 the majority shifts and it’s over.
I believe that ANY healthcare bill that is signed will be a shell for further amendments and that in the end it will reconstruct itself into the monstrosity we see today. The omnibus must be stopped cold and individual issues solved individually with the free market being paramount.
(The following includes a sample letter to Members of Congress, Q&A and Supporting Foundation)
THIS LETTER WOULD GO TO FEDERAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, THE MEDIA AND OTHERS.
A special media package could be created for conservative media with talking points, Q & A etc.
A PROCLAMATION
The Proposed 28th Amendment
Recall of Congress for States Rights
GREETINGS TO ALL,
MAY IT BE HEREBY BE KNOWN, that it is the intention of the following states to join together to support the creation of the 28th AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION providing for A RECALL OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS by the constituants of those who elected them.
This amendment will return the power and independence to the states that ratified the Constitution and Section V of the Articles of Confederation, to protect the independence of the states and the people and will provide support only those Members of Congress who follow the intention of the Constitution to protect the common elements of the country.
1) THE STATES HEREBY UNDERSIGED WILL PURSUE ALL REMEDIES and will create a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution to recall Congress that will allow all citizens of this country to recall their elected Federal Representatives of Congress, at any time and for any reason, as is currently allowed by many of the States, and has been for over 100 years.
2) THIS PROCLAMATION is a furtherance of States Rights, to insure that no single power or authority shall have supremacy over any State, Republic, Commonwealth or person in this Union, and that the states have the right to act in their own best interest and the rights of the people.
3) WE THEREFORE PRAY, that other States join with us and begin the process to ratify a new 28th Amendment of the Constitution entitled “STATES RIGHTS OF ORIGINAL FREEDOM TO RECALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS”.
4) AND CONGRESS SHALL HAVE NO RECOURSE to contest such an action to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution, nor to argue against any recalls made by the States or by any constituents, whether by judicial, legislative, or executive means or interference by Congress.
5) IT IS RESOLVED, the following states, in order to create a more perfect union shall join together for the redress of the following violations of States Rights and institute a Recall Amendment AND SHALL USE ALL OTHER MEANS TO RECALL ANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS who violate the Constitution of the United States of America OR INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF ANY STATES OR THE PEOPLE.
SO SAY WE ALL
FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA (example only)
Individual Representatives of the Legislature of the State of Montana will deliberate and begin the process to move forward with the intent of this RESOLUTION on this ______day of __________________ 2009.
Those to be recalled are for or against the following in opposition of the state:
(Example issues - Make up whatever you would like them to take notice to-I just made up some examples)
i) Cease any and all yes votes on any health care bill or vote no to all
ii) Cease any and all yes votes on any carbon tax bill or vote no to all
iii) For Federal Banking violations of private companies operating within the State of Montana
iv) To release any and all Federal restrictions regarding operations in the coal business
v) To cease any Federal tax subsidies on any bio fuels or engineered fuels
vi) To cease any Federal gun control laws
Add signature here-or you could use the STATE SEAL to officiate with a private signatory memorandum withheld.
(Add more names as needed)
Summary
That’s it. That is all that has to be done. Get a one or two states to join with you. This doesn’t even have to be signed. (A private memorandum of agreement with state seal on this agreement could be used). Then this is publicized, it is put out on the media, conservative talk shows, read on the floor in Congress by some supportive members from your state etc.Because this includes a Recall Amendment AND a Constitutional Convention this will get media attention.Whatever happens, IT CAN’T HURT.
If these blue dogs see the states getting ready to gang up on Congress it might be enough to kill these bills, knowing that the states really do have the power to create a recall Amendment and balance out Congress.
TYPICAL RECALL STATUTE
CALIFORNIA RECALL PROVISIONS (FOR EXAMPLE PURPOSE)
Or Google: California Election Procedure
Questions and Answers
A recall is the only effective option to control this filibuster proof majority and runaway Congress. However, because time is so short, the THREAT of a recall is as effective as this will get. A recall amendment is a far better idea than any ideas of state succession. Yet with 20% of states current budgets going for Medicare, healthcare will be the responsibility of the states, will force the states to increase state taxes, will ruin the economy and must be stopped now.
STOPPING onerous legislation and treaty’s is far better than trying to make changes to future legislation. This gives your constituents a reason to believe that you are doing something to put a stop to this and make real substantive changes in the problem. These may also provide re-election platforms as well. Especially if effective
Q: MY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE AGAINST THE BAD BILLS – THEY DON’T NEED TO BE RECALLED.
That’s great that you have responsible representatives. But many other states do not. Be aware that your state will be bound EQUALLY as all other states to the whims of Congress regardless of who votes for passage of the bills or treaties. Even if your representatives vote against the bad bills, if federal legislation is passed, you will still be bound by it and your economy will still suffer. You may be forced to vote for state tax increases to support the federal legislation because federal mandates affect every state. This could adversely affect your chances of re-election
THE STATES HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER FOR COMMON GOALS.
Q: WHY A RECALL?
A: There are other options. But a recall is not subject to the judiciary. Many other solutions are lengthy, not settled, may be reversed by judges and may not reflect the will of the people. A recall goes to the heart of the politician and the agenda. The threat of a recall can and will STOP THE VOTE. No matter how bad the legislation is-without a vote it is not going anywhere.
The reason why there are actually so few recalls is because most issues are settled quickly when the threat of a recall occurs. In government, as in law, the threat of an action can provide immediate results. Sometimes the BLUFF is the real art of the game.
This is why it is important to make the recall relatively easy to start and see to a completion. Typical state recalls can start with from 35 – 100 signatures. That allows a negotiation to start quickly for a rapid resolution. A signature petition to start a recall can stop a vote on a bill the same day, even though the actual recall procedure may take 6 months or more and is unlikely to be successful. No politician wants to face a recall.
One possibility of the actual statute could be to use the existing state recall laws to just extend to Congress. The threat of enacting a Recall for Congress could change their world forever.
Q: WHY NOT TRY TO NULLIFY LEGISLATION OR USE STATES RIGHTS?
A: Nullification and other options can take longer, can be defeated with technicalities and even the best can be defeated by the judiciary. Most cannot be used until AFTER the legislation is in place. You can’t un-shoot a gun.
Once healthcare passes, they could dismantle the current system so fast that it won’t matter. By the time any resolution is settled, the system will be gone.
For example. Up to 50%of the doctors will retire if this bill passes. You are not going to get them open their offices ever again regardless of any future decisions. They’re gone.
While states rights might be able to create a state healthcare authority to provide self administrated healthcare, there is no way to avoid the IRS from collecting taxes for to support the healthcare for other states. Now you have your constituents paying twice.
HEALTHCARE, CARBON TAX AND TREATY’S will take over the economy quickly and there will be no turning back. There will also be no way to separate your state from carbon tax as the cost of goods imported from other states will drive your prices up as well.
THE CURRENT HEALTHCARE OPPOSITION PROTESTERS ARE GOING TO GET WEARY. They have jobs and families. THIS RECALL EFFORT WILL BREATH FRESH ENERGY INTO THE FIGHT, AND SHOW YOUR CONSTITUANTS THAT YOU ARE FIGHTING TOO.
You could initiate a recall awareness effort in 7-10 days, and use marketing and publicity to help the awareness to grow. This movement could be read on the floor of Congress in as little as a week from an agreement of a few states.
If it gets to the 28th Amendment that’s great and the effort should be made. There is no better time to try. But this is an effective tool NOW, if it holds off the worst legislation till 2010 when the majority could shift.
A RECALL is quick, final, indisputable action, not subject to judicial review, but more importantly it can force a quick negotiation, stop votes and force a compromise agreeable to all, or just shut the bill down with no votes to continue.
Q: RE-ELECTIONS CAN COST MILLIONS.
A: The truth is that most recalls are over tax issues. The recall is a threat to all politicians who are over spending. Such a threat can avoid recalls altogether. If politicians are so abusive that the tax payers are willing to rise up, the problem of unbridled abusive taxation is going to cost far more than a recall and re election.
REMEMBER, A RUINED ECONOMY LEAVES ONLY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AS VOTERS.
Protect conservative jobs and businesses and the taxpayers will keep conservatives and the free market in power.
Q: WHAT IF IT JUST TURNS INTO A RECALL BATTLE?
A:Some are afraid of a recall being used as a political tool to defeat the other side. This has never happened in the United States. We have had recall statutes in 16 states for over 100 years. Most have no reason even required to start the recall. Most states have had less than five recalls in their history. Again, the power of the recall statute is the threat that forces negotiations, stops votes on bills and creates equitable solutions.
Q: RECALLS ARE A THREAT TO POLITICIANS-THEY CANNOT DO THEIR JOB IF RECALLS ARE HANGING OVER THEIR HEADS
A: Quite frankly the opposite is the fact. The voice of the people using the recall provisions could actually be a positive election tool. If the people are free to confront the politician, he or she will get immediate feedback that could help the politician win future elections.
Q: WE DON’T WANT TO OPEN A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
A: The purpose of this amendment is to put pressure on the Congress NOW to stop health care, cap and trade and other bad bills and upcoming treaties. The actual time permitted for a Constitutional Amendment to be ratified is seven years. Once these immediate issues are solved, the details will be more apparent. If a Constitutional Convention seems too problematic, the recall process can be stopped.
