Free Republic

You've got to be joking.

You had a recall vote? How did you enact it? People on this forum seem to think it isn't constitutional. Sounds like your effort proves otherwise. Yes?

That's precisely why the power should be given directly to the people of that state, and not left in the country club hands of the fellow Senators who would fear each other's reprisals. What's wrong with letting the people decide. If a representative abandons them, the people should have a recourse.

Why do you keep bringing up Presidents and political parties? That has nothing to do with the argument. The argument is, do the peopel of a state have the right to recall a representative they feel is abandoning them. That's it, pure and simple. Why should the people of a state go without representation for 4 years waiting for the next time their wayward Senator is up for election? Clearly their representation is more important to a Republic than the particular Senator's job. The people of the state are entitled to their representation, and should be able to decide via statewide vote to recall a representative should they see fit.

As attractive as that suggestion is from an entertainment standpoint, you understand I was looking for something a little more substantial.

I don't understand what Bo is trying to say. In fact, I don't think they are really saying anything. Congress passes lemon laws for autos, right? Bo seems to be rying to argue that people have more a right to a car that works for them than a representative that works for them. I don't see anything in the Constitution that suggests that.

You are not arguing the issue. You are saying the people still want him. If that is true, then Daschle should have nothing to be afraid of. However, if a politician thinks he has more to gain in seeking national office by abandoning his state because it only represents 3 electoral votes... then the people have a right to tell him otherwise. It's their representation that is sacred, not the particular representative's job. Do you have anything of relevence to say in this discussion, or are you just here to try and sell that Daschle's obstruction of a President his home state voted for nearly 2 to 1 indicates Daschle is adequately representing his state's views?

No, the representative could be voted out of office if the people of the state don't think he is representing their views anymore. Aren't the people entitled to representation? Can they control of a representative changes their spots after winning the election? No, but they should be able to control their right to representation. I think it would be a good check-and-balance provision.

I think it would be a great law. As long as representatives stayed loyal to their states, they would have nothing to worry about. But if not, the people have a way of removing them and replacing them with someone who does represent them.

I don't see how this law changes the "rules" for Congress. It just allows the states to make sure their representatives stay loyal to them.

The South Dakotan's representation in congress is certainly their issue, it's THEIR representation. Such a law would not change the rules for getting elected, like the 5' 9" example someone posted, it would establish rules for staying in office. If you are not even representing 41% of your state, what business do you have being their representative?

Well, to dave and everyone else: 1) I am not a South Dakotan. 2) I think even if it will take more time for the process to actually remove him prior to 2004, the fact that the process is underway will help to curb the scumbag. 3) There are laws that say you can't change the rules of an election during the election process. I don't see how that has any relevence to a state deciding after the fact that their representative is no longer representing them, and they want someone who will. I see no conflict with such a state provision to keep its representatives actually representing its people and any existing law. Please feel free to advise me if this is not true.

Why couldn't a state pass a law that it can remove one of its congressmen if 60% of the people feel their views are not being properly represented? If a certain number of signatures are obtained the congressman's job would be put up for a statewide vote. If 55% or 60% or what ever number they agree on vote that their views are not being represented by the congressman, then the congressman is removed.

But he has totally abandoned the large majority of his state. 60% voted for President Bush. Don't the people of South Dakota have any recourse to pull the plug on a representative that is clearly going to abandon them for the next 4 years? I would think that they certainly should have that right. Without it they don't actually have representation.

So it can be done. I think the media is a different animal now than it was during the Clinton Impeachment. I think whether successful or not in actually removing him, Impeachment proceedings in his state will certainly do a lot to curb that dog. If you have a link to Senatorial Impeachment proceedings I would appreciate it. I am hoping that it is something the people from his home state can do, so that Congress doesn't have to be distracted by it.

My response to that is, I regret I have only one alien abduction to give for my country. So, can it be done? Can a state remove its Senator from office?