And a little more:
***
Some have argued that U.S. Senators are not subject to recall. Recall opponents (the media) give vague reason and reference to “Federally Elected Officials.” Senators are clearly state elected officials that are selected to represent state interests on a federal level in state elections.
The unsuccessful attempts by states to enforce term limits have been argued as precedent against the recall of Senators. This is an inaccurate assumption. The 17th amendment transfers the electoral power to the people from the state legislature for the selection of U.S. Senators. The recall is the exercise of the electoral power of Arizona citizens, the people not the legislature. The term limit laws of the states need to be put into place by the people not the legislatures.
The 17th Amendment goes on to describe the process on how to fill seats in the Senate when they become vacant. Clearly, it is expected that seats will become vacant for whatever reason. Removal from office by the will of the people is a valid reason that is not prohibited by any language in the 17th Amendment.
Recall opponents will then try to argue that the term period (six years for Senators) is so firmly established in the Constitution that it can not be affected by the will of the people. Opponents to recall will also cite Article 1, Section 5, Clauses 1 & 2, which empowers each house of congress to be the judge of elections, returns and qualifications of its members and grants them the ability to expel a member with a 2/3 vote. This assumes that the power “to expel” lies solely with each body of congress and is exclusive of the will of the people.
Three other Amendments give the recall effort of the people of Arizona the right to fix the problems with a lack of representation in the Senate:
Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the recall. Think about it, would the framers of the constitution want to restrict the electoral power of the people so much that they could not fix a problem with a non-representative Senator?
Read for yourself:
The U.S. Constitution
http://www.house.gov/paul/constitutiontext.htm
The Arizona Constitution
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/const/8/1.p1.htm
This line is intriguing: “twenty- five per centum of the number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for all of the candidates for the office held by such officer.”
Title 19 Arizona Revised Statutes
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/19/00201.htm
The last general election in 2000 dealt with Senator Kyl’s U.S. Senate seat. There were about 1.4 million votes cast all of the candidates, which translates to about 350,000 signatures required for a recall. We believe that the “preceding general election” language refers to John McCain’s office as he is the officer we are recalling. In his election held in 1998 about 975,000 people voted for the office of U.S. Senator in Arizona. That would mean about 244,000 signatures are required on the Recall John McCain petition. Title 19 of the A.R.S. contradicts Article 8 of the Arizona Constitution in how the number of petitioners is derived in this case. The AZ Constitution is the authority. A request from the Arizona Attorney General for interpretation on this issue is pending.
http://www.recallmccain.org/LegalFront.htm
Looks doable, huh?