GOVERNMENT by the CONSENT of the GOVERNED

GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

In 1998, the people of Arizona approved public funding of state political campaigns as a means to reduce the influence of special interest money in our electoral process. A Citizens Clean Elections Commission was created to regulate this public funding program with the power to levy fines and in certain circumstances to require participating candidates to forfeit office for violating commission rules.

The Citizens Clean Elections Commission has determined that David Burnell Smith, a participating candidate elected by the voters of his district to the Arizona House of Representatives, has violated commission rules and must forfeit his office.

Do we really want an appointed commission to have the power to overturn the choice of the people?

"Government by the consent of the governed," is a concept that was advanced by Rousseau in his "Social Contract," Thomas Jefferson, further advanced Rousseau's concept in the "Declaration of Independence," which states, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

As individual citizens, we may not always agree with the people's choice of whom shall govern, however, we accept the will of the majority as legitimately giving those in public office consent to govern.

This concept of government was incorporated into our federal and state constitutions, this is why we have elections, so that we may have a government by the consent of the governed rather then by the divine right of kings or by an appointed commission.

This principle of government is one of the most important for which our system of government is founded, it is neither Democrat nor Republican, liberal or conservative, it is called, representative democracy.

The Constitution of the State of Arizona allows only two methods for removal of a member of the legislature, one is by expulsion for disorderly behavior, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the House or Senate, the other is the right of the people to recall a legislator. There is nothing in the Arizona Constitution which allows any appointed commission or court for that matter, to overturn the people's choice, because that would violate the principle of "Government by the consent of the governed."

Bob Haran, Phoenix, AZ www.Bob-Haran.info

Fill my eyes / with that double vision...

How about this as a measure of church vs. state seperation. An atheist has just as much rights in America as a Christian. Not more, not less. They cancel each other out

Here's a question: In your world, just how bad do you have to cheat before you have to forefit the election you stole?

Taxpayer-funded elections are just another power-grab by politicians.

Just as taxpayer-funded health care can give government the excuse to disallow treatment for behaviors it disapproves of (smoking,) gov't funding of political campaigns gives the pols their foot in the door at controlling the elections.

If someone wants to run for public office and if his ideas appeal to enough people he'll collect contributions to fund his own damned campaign -- if of course the gubmint allows us to spend our own money as we wish.

Here's a question: In your world, just how bad do you have to cheat before you have to forefit the election you stole?

Ask Lyndon Johnson!!

The Citizens Clean Elections Commission has determined that David Burnell Smith, a participating candidate elected by the voters of his district to the Arizona House of Representatives, has violated commission rules and must forfeit his office.
Do we really want an appointed commission to have the power to overturn the choice of the people?

Are you sure they have that power? - Can't Smith have his day in court before a jury of his peers?

"Government by the consent of the governed," is a concept that was advanced by Rousseau in his "Social Contract," Thomas Jefferson, further advanced Rousseau's concept in the "Declaration of Independence," which states, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
As individual citizens, we may not always agree with the people's choice of whom shall govern, however, we accept the will of the majority as legitimately giving those in public office consent to govern.

Indeed, we accept officials as legitimate, - as long as they obey our rules of law, -- constitutional laws. -- If this Arizona law is constitutional, Smith may be in trouble.

This concept of government was incorporated into our federal and state constitutions, this is why we have elections, so that we may have a government by the consent of the governed rather then by the divine right of kings or by an appointed commission. This principle of government is one of the most important for which our system of government is founded, it is neither Democrat nor Republican, liberal or conservative, it is called, representative democracy.

Wrong. -- Article IV, Sec 4 insists that States must have a "Republican Form of Government", with the US Constitution as the supreme "Law of the Land" [Art VI] ..

The Constitution of the State of Arizona allows only two methods for removal of a member of the legislature, one is by expulsion for disorderly behavior, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the House or Senate, the other is the right of the people to recall a legislator. There is nothing in the Arizona Constitution which allows any appointed commission or court for that matter, to overturn the people's choice, because that would violate the principle of "Government by the consent of the governed."

You wrote that:

"-- In 1998, the people of Arizona approved ["the peoples choice"?] public funding of state political campaigns -- A Citizens Clean Elections Commission was created to regulate this public funding program with the power to levy fines and in certain circumstances to require participating candidates to forfeit office for violating commission rules. --"

Sounds to me like the constitutionality of this issue must be settled in the courts -- preferably by juries of the people acting on specific 'violations'..

Would you object to this solution?

<< Here's a question: In your world, just how bad do you have to cheat before you have to forefit the election you stole?

Ask Lyndon Johnson!! >>

Ask John F Kennedy.

Ask Bubba Blythe.

Ask Maria Cantwell.

Ask Al-Fredo Gore-leone.

Christine Gregoire.

Ask John Kerry ....

.... Oh, hang on a minute, I just remember we cut the last two off at the pass!

I'm reading "A More Perfect Union" right now.

Here's a question: In your world, just how bad do you have to cheat before you have to forefit the election you stole?

Your tinfoil is chafing. Recommend you gulp more kookaid, oops I meant koolaid, well now that I really think about it...