Posted on 08/16/2009 6:40:32 AM PDT by SandRat
SIERRA VISTA — Festering anger over the national health care debate has some local protesters seeking the ouster of Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Experts say the effort is symbolic, though.
Protesters have given Giffords an ultimatum to host a town hall meeting on health care reform or else resign. If she fails to meet their demands, the protesters want her forced out of office.
On Aug. 8, nearly 150 people gathered for a protest outside her Sierra Vista office. Many signed what was labeled as a recall petition, although there was no statement on the petition why such an action was warranted, as required by Arizona law.
Although a state law allows for recall of members of Congress, Arizona’s assistant secretary of state said such a recall would not be successful, even if a member agreed to abide by a recall vote.
Giffords did sign a pledge to resign if not affirmed during a recall vote, Assistant Secretary of State Jim Drake said. He noted that the matter is covered in parts 19-221 and 19-222 of Article 2 of Arizona’s recall procedures, approved in 1973.
The state rules are all for naught, he said.
“U.S. representatives and senators are federal officers and although they are elected by voters in the state, there is no avenue in the U.S. Constitution to allow a recall,” Drake said. “Only Congress can expel a member.”
The issue is addressed in a March 2003 report to Congress prepared by the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Services. In the report, Jack Maskell, legislative attorney for the American Law Division, noted there are no provisions in the U.S. Constitution for voters to recall any federal officer.
“As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States,” stated the 2003 document titled “Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office.”
Maskell noted that during the drafting of the Constitution in 1787, recall was considered, “but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the States for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the Framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United States Congress exists under the Constitution.”
The only way a member of Congress can be removed from office is through expulsion by the House of Representatives or Senate.
In the history of the nation, 15 senators and five House members have been expelled. Seventeen were kicked out during the Civil War for disloyalty — 14 senators and three representatives, the report states.
Maskell’s noted, “Although actual expulsions from Congress are fairly rare, it should be noted that several members of Congress have chosen to resign from office rather than face what was apparently perceived as an inevitable congressional expulsion.”
Under U.S. Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, “since the states never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and condition of service of federal official agreed to and established in the Constitution, such power could not be ‘reserved’ under the 10th Amendment,” the report states. The 10th Amendment gives the states and the people any power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
However, Maskell noted that recall provisions were part of a popular progressive movement in the 20th century, particularly in western states.
Drake said there have been a few occasions when recall efforts for members of Congress have been undertaken in the state, but none of the petitions have been turned in.
Even if a recall was done, “Congress would not accept the vote,” he predicted, because it would impinge on congressional authority.
Reporter Bill Hess can be reached at 515-4615 or by e-mail at bill.hess@svherald.com.
The founders were wise to write into the Constitution that in order to protect the people from tyranny by its own government and the instruments of that government - it’s so called representatives - that the people could take steps, start a grass roots movement to recall any representative it deems unfit for their job through recall or referendum and other means such as not re-electing them to office. These are powerful tools the people have at their disposal and they should start being used freely and willingly.
Hopefully a trend is starting!
The founders were wise to write into the Constitution that in order to protect the people from tyranny by its own government and the instruments of that government - it’s so called representatives - that the people could take steps, start a grass roots movement to recall any representative it deems unfit for their job through recall or referendum and other means such as not re-electing them to office. These are powerful tools the people have at their disposal and they should start being used freely and willingly.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. -- Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 28ML/NJ
Fire them all, if they go rogue.
Well then, let the games begin on a constitutional basis. The Constitution is not based on what the people can do to the government but what rights the people have against what the government can do to the people.
Maybe there needs to be an effort to rightfully define the title of Federal Officer. As far as I’m concerned, congresscritters are REPRESENTATIVES to the Federal Government of the people elected to act in their name.
One thing I know is that Giffords is in real danger of being term limited out of office by the voters in that district. When she cancelled a town hall, her announced Republican 2010 oponent orchestrated a masterful move and hosted the meeting anyway. Can you imagine the hell that her staffers received after that move?
Maybe she has just gotten the first salvo of what arrogance can to to you. I predict many more to come.
“Even if a recall was done, “Congress would not accept the vote,” he predicted, because it would impinge on congressional authority.”
However, a state CAN pass a law that makes it a crime for them NOT to resign if recalled, and issue a warrant for their arrest in such an instance.
Then what's the problem? The Constitution doesn't say that a representative can't make an agreement with her constituency about honoring recall votes.
Maybe such cases can then be also appealed to the SCOTUS.
Maskell is wrong. Recall is clearly intended to be allowed in the Constitution. It can be found in both the Commerce Clause and in the General Welfare provisions. Both vast repositories of unstated government powers. So too then, they must contain vast repositories of unstated powers of the People (along with the 10th amendment) where we can to seek relief.
Fine, then ... let’s have an amendment providing for recall and another for term limits for congresscritters. And let’s repeal the 16th, too.
In fact, I’d be happy to see a Constitutional Convention convened! Bring it!
Yes, that would potentially put the whole sacred document up in the air. And yes, the usual pack of commies now in office would probably try to dominate the show, with the 2nd Amendment at the very top of their unholy menu.
But any changes proposed would still need to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states. And THAT is where the ironclad protection for the Constitution resides!
So, call the convention and propose what you like. But the next step requires the states to play an active role and I don’t think the current administration wants the hear from the states at all. In fact, the states hold the key to bringing this whole federal behemoth to heel and Zero knows it!
but.. but.. she didn’t really think anyone would actually recall sweet her.
The whole point of the story is that there is no provision for recall or referendum at the federal level. The only provision for getting rid of a Congressman or Senator before their next election gives that power to Congress itself, specifically:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.
BTW, referendum is the passing of laws, or sometimes just non-binding resolutions, by direct vote of the people, it has nothing to do with getting rid of rotten apples, nothing directly at least.
Does Senator Giffords CARE about the health of the people in Southeastern Arizona? I would have to say NO! I contacted her office in writing multiple times asking her to take action concerning a major health hazard occurring north of Willcox. I provided her office with much information concerning FELONY dumping of toxic, hazardous waste into large ground fissures near the city of Willcox municipal water wells. I informed her I have indisputable evidence ADEQ inspectors intentionally issued false reports on their findings concerning what was dumped into the fissures. The felony dumping of hundreds or thousands of various hazardous waste meterials into the fissures has contaminated the ground water. Used waste oil by the barrel, tet carb and hundreds of others have been dumped into the fissures and subsequently, the ground water...all in close proximity to the municipal water wells of Willcox. There is a substantial cover-up going on by the city and ADEQ. The letter I received from Senator Giffords in response to my complaints came more than a year after my initial complaints to her office. Senator Giffords stated the issue could not be addressed by her office stating there was no federal jurisdiction in the matter. WOW! I did not know the federal government could not intervene in a matter of hazardous waste being introduced into the groundwater, especially in close proximity to a public water supply. I guess the the “Federal clean water act” does not come under “Federal” jurisdiction. I would be obliged if you would pass this information on to the protestors. They need to know Giffords simply does not care about the health of people in SE AZ. Thanks,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.