If Lieberman starts to caucus with Pukes, can CT citizens impeach or otherwise "fire" him?

[MoonRiver]

If he does this it would be a clear violation of his pledge to the voters of CT, including many Dems and Independents who voted for him on the assumption he would stick with the Dems on most issues.

I don't know if there is, but it seems that there ought to be some recourse against traitorous Senators. Of course, Lieberman hasn't turned yet, but his bush covering betrayal of Katrina victims and out of step stance on Iraq are seriously making me wonder if this guy isn't going to flip.

[splat]

1. He ran as an independent. He can caucus wherever he wants

[wordpix]

26. on MTP today, he was listed as a D/I as he was saying * should ignore Congress if it

passes a resolution to stop the surge.

[MoonRiver]

2. He ran as an "Independent Democrat."

He ran on the promise that he would caucus with the Democrats. I'm just asking if the people who voted him in on that promise can get rid of him if he breaks the promise.

[splat]

5. No, he was the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party

[MoonRiver]

17. He called and still calls himself an Independent Democrat or Democratic Independent.

CT Dems who voted for him in the general were snookered.

[CTyankee]

34. There is no such thing as an "Independent Democrat"

He called himself that AGAIN just the other day. Man, that just burns me up! He's as arrogant as Bush. No wonder he likes him; he's acting just like Bush.

I'm mad all over again about that election...

[MoonRiver]

37. I really feel for you after that insane election.

Are there really that many Repugnants in CT, to have tipped the balance for Holy Joe?

[CTyankee]

40. Yeah, there are and some so-called Independents

But when I called for Ned at his hq in New Haven I found some uninformed Dems thinking Ole Joe was just fine. Then there were the Dems in his old neighborhood (which is also mine, altho my house is on a less fancy street)who put up "I'm stickin' with Joe" signs. Some were his fellow congregants at his synogogue. They knew him personally and were loyal to him, even tho some told me they were strongly against the war. Go figure.

By the time the General campaign wound down I was dejected. Ned's poll numbers were going down and he never bounced back. Some people I phoned were beginning to sound irritated by Ned. They thought he was some rich Greenwich guy who had time on his hands and was running for the Senate as an adventure. I got the sense that they resented the fact that after the election, if he lost Ned could just go back to his cushy life (which, when you think about it is true but so unfair to Ned). Ned just didn't resonate with some middle class voters.

Also, the Republican in the race was a joke. If there had been a strong Republican running it would be a different story. But the party just ran this guy because they assumed a Joe win.

[MoonRiver]

41. What a shame it came out that way. : o(

Why, oh why don't people understand the obvious??? To stop the war we have to get rid of ALL the warmongers!
:banghead:

[CTyankee]

46. Because they are either uninformed or they have a preconceived

idea about the candidate. That's why. Joe's fellow congregants felt they "knew" him and could trust him on middle East issues. I understood that but could not shake them from their feelings about Israel and what the stakes were.

However, my opposition to Joe is unshakeable. This guy realy screwed Connecticut and the entire country in my estimation. He is an utter turncoat as far as Democrats go. He is a disgrace.

[SoFlaJet]

3. Mister Ego won't do it

because he would lose his seniority and thus his chairmanships-plus he'll be made even MORE irrelevant in 08 with more repubs in vulnerable seats than dems...he is the most despicable democrat I've seen since hmmm give me a minute I'll come up with one.....eventually

[MoonRiver]

9. I would have been inclined to think that until Katrina.

Honestly, I believed that, despicable as it is, his stance on Iraq was strictly due to his allegiance to Israel. Other than that I have heard that he is pretty liberal.

But there is no such explanation for his betrayal of the Katrina victims. He's clearly just protecting Dimson.

[bahrbearian]

10. Times Up' couldn't find one could you.

[charlie]

43. If Republicans guarantee he'll retain seniority perks

for his vote for a Republican majority leader, he could caucus with the Repubs without penalty.

[Catch22Dem]

4. Did we ask this when Jeffords switched to IND?

I'd hate for some kind of action to be taken against this "traitorous" senator? I don't disagree that Lieberman is a disgrace to the party, but remember, whatever we say/do about Lieberman, has to apply to Jeffords also. So, if we call for Lieberman's ouster, we're also calling for Jeffords' as well.

[MoonRiver]

12. CA recalled their governor. Maybe VT would have done it if there had been support.

I'm asking because I don't know the law regarding recalling/impeaching etc. Senators.

[Catch22Dem]

29. I'm not sure, but the law may vary from state to state.

It does for governors, but those are state offices. So, I just don't know.

[MoonRiver]

30. I don't know either.

I was hoping somebody in the know would post a section of the US Constitution or CT Constitution clarifying this. I've looked at both but can't find anything one way or the other. I don't know where to look though, so that's a problem.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

33. I believe that recalling a Senator would be unconstitutional

The U.S. Constitution provides for their election to six year terms and does not provide for lessening of a term, at least not based upon a recall election by popular vote.

Impeachment and expulsion may be possible, but I think the issue is not clear-cut with regards to the legislative branch. The U.S. Constitution allows for impeachment of "the President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States." Are Senators "Civil Officers" of the United States? The only case of a member of the legislature in serious jeopardy of impeachment was Senator William Blount in the early 1800s. But after initiating impeachment, the process was dropped because Blount had earlier been expelled and it was deemed that they no longer had jurisdiction over him to impeach him. I think the issue of whether a Senator could even be impeached is not decided. Anyway, he would have to be shown to have committed "treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors".

But I think it's always possible for either body of the legislative branch to expell a member for cause, even without impeachment, but I'm not sure exactly how it works. Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House (of Congress) may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." I'm not sure what the consequences of expulsion are. Perhaps the Senator would continue being a Senator in title only, but would have no functional ability.

[razorman]

13. To be completely fair, I have to agree.

Lieberman at least nominally changed parties before the election; unlike Jeffords, who was elected as a Republican and then switched. Either way, I don't think there is much the offended political party, whether it be Dem or Rep, can do about a turncoat, officially. Campaign against him in the next election, and boot his ass out.

[CTyankee]

38. But he only switched parties because he HAD to!

He ran in the Democratic Primary but had already hedged his bets by garnering enough signatures to run as an Independent in case he didn't win in the Primary, which he pretty much knew he wouldn't because his own pollsters told him so.

Aaargh!

[xultar]

22. And don't forget Bernie who is also an Independent.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Sanders ran on both tickets.

He was also elected as an official Democrat.

[xultar]

27. Thanks for the correction.

:pals:

[Selatius]

6. No provision exists in the US Constitution to "recall" senators except impeachment.

Once you choose your senator, unless he dies or is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, you're screwed for the next six years until re-election. If you want the power to recall senators, congressmen, and presidents, you can find that in Europe, not here.

[billybob537]

7. I believe they can recall him

for any reason or no particular reason.

[MoonRiver]

14. COOL!

(Hope you are correct) :hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

20. My googling indicates otherwise.

First, as there is no defined federal process, a recall, even if constitutional would have to be on a state by state basis.

Second, Connecticut has no such provision, as far as I can tell.

Finally, as mentioned above, it is not thought to be constitutional at the federal level.

[NoPasaran]

23. Do you have any actual information, or just wishful thinking?

My admittedly quick google hunt didn't turn up anything indicating that Connecticut voters could recall a senator.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. Sorry

no, they can't. The constitution covers this, and has no provision for recall.

This is why state-by-state term-limit rules for Congress were ruled unconstitutional. States cannot add to or alter the constitutional provisions for serving in the Congress. For example, the constitution states that a Senator must be at least 30 years of age. No state could say "well, we like our Senators a bit older" and impose a 40-year age limit.

Similarly, the constitution says that only a 2/3rds vote of the Senate can expel a member (there is no impeachment, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread). Therefore, the states can't override this by adopting a recall provision.

[scarletwoman]

8. No. Besides, it was the Republicans who elected him, he'd be making them happy.

In any case, it's not at all uncommon for elected officials to change their party affiliations once in office. There is no mechanism in place to sanction them for doing so.

sw

[SaveOurDemocracy]

11. CT Dems who voted for LIEberman...

have any regrets now?? I know the ReThugs rigged the deck ... but the Dems who voted for this repugnant slimeball deserve our scorn.

[Beelzebud]

15. It should be illegal to ignore primary results. He never should have been allowed to run...

[Hoosier Dem]

21. Here in Indiana...

Our state forbids a person from seeking office under two partydesignations in the same year. Thus, had LIEberman been defeated in the Democratic primary, he could not have then run as an independent until the NEXT election cycle.

[mike_c]

16. why would they want to-- it was largely the CT repubs and conservatives...

...who elected him. I'm sure that's exactly what they would like him to do.

[MoonRiver]

18. How many of those people are there in CT?

I would think they are a minority. Many Dems and Indys must have voted for LIEberman.

[Mechatanketra]

19. The people who voted for him want him to switch.

Reviewing the exit polls, Democrats voted for Lamont 2-1 ... while Republicans voted for Lieberman more than 3-1 over their own candidate.

More telling, the CNN exit poll contains a specific question, "Who do you want to control the Senate". Again, Lamont beats Lieberman 2-1 among those who wanted Democratic control, while Lieberman enjoyed more than 3-1 support over the Republican candidate by those who wanted Republicans to keep control, and a majority (nearly a supermajority) of support from those who said they just didn't give a damn.

The last, of course, is basically the crux of it. If the people who admit they don't care who controls the Senate didn't vote? Lamont's in office, and we're not wringing our hands over anything.

[leftofthedial]

25. he caucuses with Likud

period

[Robbien]

31. yup

end of story

[high density]

32. There's the winner

Ding ding ding.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Hmmm

There's no provision for citizens to impeach a United States senator...


A member of congress can be impeached by other members of congress though...Good luck with that...

[yurbud]

35. get some surgical tubing, foot square patch of leather, and a watermelon, & you can fire AT him

[yurbud]

36. if watermelon not in season, consider roadkill possum

[Vinca]

39. A good chunk of his voting base was Republican.

I hope they're still happy with their wonderful choice.

[MzNov]

42. yes, he could be recalled, but by Republicans who put him in? not a chance

stupid Senate fooled again

[MonkeyFunk]

44. No

he cannot be recalled.

The US constitution covers such things, and there is no provision for doing so.

[mucifer]

47. can we get Hagel to switch parties?

[mdmc]

48. no