Posted on 12/28/2011 9:09:54 AM PST by Razzz42
On Christmas Day the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. Now, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill, reports Salem-News.com.
Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses, according to SNC.
Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution.
Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive, according to SNC. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens.
These people will be the first to experience the fruits of the new law.
Montanans fighting the good fight. I don’t care what the situation is - there is NO excuse for this atrocity of a bill, and anyone who cares more about rights than about security should be standing up and fighting.
I doubt recall of federal senators is constitutional. These elections are governed by Article 1, section 3 and the XVII Amendment.
Both say those elected will serve six years. There is no provision for a recall.
A state law cannot override the Constitution.
I hope this idea catches on in all 50 states. The law is unconstitutional and those voting for it know that.
I’d love to see a similar effort in OH. There is NO excuse for that which has been thrust upon us in this law. At least, no rational, moral one.
Best of luck with this, this needs to spread nationwide, it is just one more sledge hammer against our freedom.
Horray for Montana!! At least some Americans have good sense.
So, I guess they'll just have to revert to something Constitutional, like the 2nd Ammendment.
“I doubt recall of federal senators is constitutional”
Perhaps, but the recall efforts, legal or not would illuminate for the voters just how bad these people are and make their re-election more problematic. As for Montana, Tester is up this coming year and most polling has him loosing his seat. As for Baucus, he’s just a drunk who’s been vegetating in the Senate for 32 years.
I am having trouble with the level of excitement over this part of S. 1867 as noted in this article. In my PDF version with link noted below, pages 359-371 and specifically pages 361-362 on my PDF for Sec. 1032 say that U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens are excluded. I haven’t been able to see what I am missing.
S. 1867 Text
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
If the two are recalled then the Senate should vote to kick them out, right? Or will it be easier to label the entire population of voters as ‘combatants’ and build a fence around Montana?
Negative.
It does NOT say ‘excluded’ at all.
It says the ‘requirement does not apply’. An entirely different concept.
The idea is that they would not be REQUIRED to incarcerate a citizen. But it leaves the door open to be able to if necessary because it does not say that they CAN’T.
That language was changed at the last minute or some other language added to include any citizen could be included as a combatant in a time of crisis and lose all rights but O’bummer promised his administration would never to use that aspect of the bill. Of course, I haven’t seen where O’bummer has signed the bill yet either.
Correct. Montana has not tried to do so. The Montana Recall Act 2-16-614. Number of electors required for recall petition, provides the number of valid signatures for a recall petition against State, District, County, Precinct, Municipal and School Officers, but not for Federal Officers. Because it doesn't apply to them.
Who is advising this group, Orly Taitz?
It is my understanding that that provision has been struck. Am I mistaken? thx
The word “requirement” bothers me also until I link it to the title of Sec 1032 that is “Requirement for Military Custody”. So then I see how any reference to U.S. citizens just disappears.
But then I can also see your points about how failing to include a passage that says something like “no way in hell” is also a problem.
Words have meaning, as does a lack of words.
Without words specifically prohibiting it, it is allowed.
Remember, this allows the military to do this. POTUS is CinC. Whether a person is a citizen, all it takes is for him to be defined or determined to be a ‘terrorist’ and it is time for jail.
Remember, early in this administration, DHS defined potential terrorists - ex-military, right wingers, Christians....
The groundwork is laid.
What I remember being dropped in the House was the Senate provision legalizing sodomy and bestiality. Article 125 of the UCMJ says those acts are simply wrong, but the Senators could not allow that definition to stand after their repeal of DADT. SB 1867 substituted in Section 551(pages 131-149 on my PDF) myriad descriptive phrases such as “unlawful force”, “rendering unconscious”, “causing bodily harm”, “sexual contact”, “lack of consent”, and “place in fear”. The problem is all the new phraseology includes the word ”person”.
Now that issue should have had the people from PETA up in arms. The Army still has quite a few horses and the Naval Academy mascot is a goat. The first reactions by the military were hesitant references to “good order and discipline”. I am not sure that statement provided a lot of comfort to the animals pacing nervously in their stalls.
Looks like I need to find a later text of the bill. That has never been a fun activity for me. I think I have a site among my favorites, but interpreting its language seems to be a new experience for me each time.
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.