Posted on 02/01/2006 12:43:13 PM PST by Bob Haran
Government- Without - the Consent of the Governed
by Bob Haran
Arizona State Representative David Burnell Smith has made history by becoming the first legislator in America to be removed from office for violating a campaign finance law. Smith has finally paid a price for overspending on his 2004 taxpayer funded campaign for the Arizona House of Representatives. The people that elected Smith to represent them have also paid a price. Smith has been forced from the office the people of his legislative district had elected him to serve in. It seems that the American principle of, government by the consent of the governed, has also paid a price.
Smith agreed to comply with the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission rules when he accepted public funding for his campaign. The commission, which is an un-elected- appointed body, has determined that Smith violated their rules by overspending on his campaign and must forfeit the office the voters elected him to.
Let us assume that Smith did in fact violate the Citizens Clean Elections Act of 1998, which was approved by the voters and provides penalties for violations of the Act in the form of monetary fines and if one is elected, the forfeiture of office. If a candidate for office violated the Act and lost the election, they could not possible be subject to the same penalty of, forfeiture of office, as someone who was elected, therefore, the candidate that is the choice of the people, is subject to an extra penalty for the same offense then someone that was not the people’s choice, this is not fair to the candidate that is chosen by the people or to the voters that elected him or her.
Second only to the United States Constitution, the Arizona Constitution is the supreme law in Arizona. A constitution determines the powers and duties of a government and guarantees certain rights and powers to the people that live under it’s laws. The state constitution creates a legislative branch which is elected by the people and prescribes the method of expulsion of members for disorderly behavior. The Arizona Constitution also provides for the recall of elected officials by the people through a special election for that purpose. The Arizona Constitution clearly applies the principle of, government by the consent of the governed, by giving to the people the power to choose who shall represent them in the legislature and also the power to remove elected officials when they choose to do so. There is no provision in the Arizona Constitution for the removal of an elected official by an un-elected-appointed commission.
The Citizens Clean Elections Act of 1998 gives the commission the power to impose monetary fines on candidates for violations of their rules and the penalty of forfeiture of office, when a violator is elected. The forfeiture of office provision is clearly in conflict with the Arizona Constitution. The Clean Elections Act is not part of the constitution, it is a law, and when a law conflicts with the constitution, the constitution, as the supreme law, shall prevail.
You can love David Burnell Smith or hate him, unless you disagree with the principle of , government by the consent of the governed, you must admit that the people have a right to chose their own representatives and no appointed commission should have the power to overturn their choice.
Forfeiture of office is too high a price to pay for violating a campaign finance law, it not only removes someone from office but also deprives the people of their right to have whom they want to represent them, it is government without the consent of the governed.
Bad laws can and should be changed. I pray that David Burnell Smith is the last legislator in America to be removed from office for violating a campaign finance law and that the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act will be amended to remove the forfeiture of office penalty.
Bob Haran, Phoenix, AZ www.Bob-Haran.info
No party mentioned.
From another news article: "Smith, R-Carefree, whose District 7 covers Carefree, Cave Creek and parts of northeast Phoenix and Scottsdale."
While not the main point of the article, this caught my eye. Unfortunately, it has become true.
The federal Constitution says nothing as to the subordination of state constitutions. Liberal federal courts have usurped the states of their legitimate power.
It is so bad that state constitutional amendments are shot down if they merely violate federal law. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but I look forward to a state governor telling a federal judge to stuff his tyrannical decision.
You mean like "Roe v. Wade"?
Sure, that would work.
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.