Montanans. Can we look into recalling Baucus? This page says there are provisions for this...

[cascadiance]

Though a post there says that others in Montana can't find the laws that allow this, the top of the post here indicates that Montana is one of 18 states that allows for recalls of their senators. Now we need to find details to see if it requires any criminal act or something else that might be harder to prove than just gathering signatures... But perhaps if Baucus knows he has an axe over him, or if in fact we can axe him out, we might be able to make health care reform the issue that will drive our government towards more populist agendas if they all start to get the idea that the public is absolutely PISSED at them and will resort to any method possible to throw them out if they don't stop being corporate toadies!

http://www.ehow.com/how_2096900_recall-us-senator.html

How to Recall a U.S. Senator
By eHow Culture & Society Editor
Rate: (17 Ratings)
Senators have to find a balance between voting their conscience and voting as their constituents would like. If senators vote their conscience too heavily, constituents tend to get angry. When this happens, constituents may ask for a recall of their U.S. Senator.

Instructions

Step 1
Consider your location. Few states allow for a recall of a senator—only 18 and the District of Columbia. If you're not living in one of these states you have no constitutional rights to recall.

Step 2
Determine the grounds for recall. You'll need this information to make your case to the population but in 7 of the 18 states specific grounds are actually required. In these states, if your reasons don't measure up, you won't be allowed to proceed with the recall.

Step 3
Get signatures. You'll need a petition to get a recall election. The number of signatures is usually a percentage of the voters at the last election but this differs by state.

Step 4
Prepare for a response. At some point during the process, the senator will be notified that a petition for recall is being circulated. She will then have a chance to respond to the allegations.

Step 5
Get voters to the recall election. Once the recall election is granted, alert the community and get them out to vote. The ballot will ask whether or not the senator should be recalled and the state may hold an election at the same time to elect the next person for that office.


Tips & Warnings

The 18 states allowing for recall are as follows: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

A website or a phone campaign are good ways to get your petition going. Going door-to-door is also an option although it is more time consuming than the other two. This is important since you only have a set number of days to obtain the correct number of signatures—anywhere from 30 to 180 days.

You will be fighting an uphill battle to recall a U.S. Senator. It is extremely rare. In fact there have only been a few cases in history of this happening.


Comments

...

mgb8484 said
on 4/23/2009
I contacted the Attorney General of Montana and they stated that there were no provisions to recall a US Senator. I cannot find any information and the Montana Constitution is vague enough to protect them. We have to do something NOW. The Tea Parties were a start. I have started a CNN boycott in my area, it takes time informing people, but I have found a certain amount of resistance to change due to complacency. Any suggestions?

...

Also, noting that Nevada is also a state that allows this too, perhaps we could threaten Reid at some point if he continues his ineptness as well!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. You know what Montanans - Senators ONLY care about what voters

in their home states think, since they are the ones that keep themon their perpetual gravy trains with your votes. I know this from making some protest calls during this health debate and finding out that the offices could care less about your opinion unless you are from the home state of the Rep.

If you did something like this, or even got together a good semblence of putting together a recall based on his health performance, the rest of the nation would go down on their knees to thank you.

[cascadiance]

2. I think most of us don't know the process for recalling a Senator...

Just googled it and found out myself that someone's saying there is such a process when I didn't think there was.

Might have been good to try on Feinstein too in the past when I was a California resident.

I'm guessing though that each state has some of their own criteria on what are grounds for recall. And those might be hard to meet with just these kinds of actions that Baucus has been engaged in, which to most of us is paying off bribes, but to the legal system that they put in place, is just a person running business as usual in our institutionalized bribery-laced system we have now.

Yes, I do think this is about getting Montanans out and educating them IF there's a well defined way that we can make this happen. If there is, then it is just an education and organization process to go out and get Montanans involved in this grass roots style.

Though I'm sure Baucus tries to vote in earmarks to his state's residents to ingratiate them to him, I would think that the health care issue is an issue that many there would share their outrage with us as well. I wonder if the insurance companies are giving a lot of "special treatment" to Montanans as a way of keeping them from going after Baucus... We need to expose that too if that's happening.

Republicans in Montana, which I'm sure there are a lot of, might see a recall chance as not only about getting health care access, but a chance to get a Republican elected instead of Baucus. I don't like the prospect of that either, but on the other hand, it increases the threat to Baucus, and quite frankly, the way that Baucus has been behaving lately, it's hard to tell whether a Republican elected there might be any worse than he as , him being SO DINO the way he is! The tradeoff for Baucus (him losing his job) is a lot worse than it is for us, sacrificing a "Democrat" Republican seat to a real Republican who perhaps we can run a REAL Democrat against next time around.

And if we kicked him out, it would also serve as a warning to other people in government that the populace isn't just going to stand back as spectators as they screw us any more and some more of them might get threatened with similar actions too.

[WeDidIt]

10. Most don't know the process, but it's right there in the constitution

You get two-thirds of the Senate to agree that the Senator in question should be expelled.

That's how it's done.

Call me when you can convince 67 United States Senators that Max Baucus should be thrown out.

[cascadiance]

3. Here's another link on this, with a description of the criteria...

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm

Recall of State Officials

March 21, 2006

Overview

Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office. Historically, recall has been used most frequently at the local level. By some estimates, three-fourths of recall elections are at the city council or school board level. This brief, however, focuses only on the recall as it applies to state officials.

Recall differs from another method for removing officials from office - impeachment - in that it is a political device while impeachment is a legal process. Impeachment requires the House to bring specific charges and the Senate to act as a jury. In most of the eighteen recall states, specific grounds are not required, and the recall of a state official is by an election.

Eighteen states permit the recall of state officials:

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho

Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada

New Jersey
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
Washington
Wisconsin

...

Montana: physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, conviction of certain felony offenses (enumerated in Title 45). No person may be recalled for performing a mandatory duty of the office he holds or for not performing any act that, if performed, would subject him to prosecution for official misconduct. (Mont. Code §2-16-603)

...

Montana has the lowest number of required signatures - 10 percent for statewide officials and 15 percent for state district offices such as legislative districts.

Seems to me that mental lack of fitness, incompetence and violation of oath of office (to the PEOPLE's interests) could be in order here! And we only need 10% of the state's populace's signatures to get it started (the lowest of the states, in an already low state population!) It needs to be done in 3 months though from what it says here.

Though an article here in the New York Times says that the U.S. Constitution doesn't allow us to recall senators... Probably need to get this pinned down before we go out and expend any heavy lifting on this yet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/13/opinion/l-you-can-t-recall-senators-221120.html

[tritsofme]

4. Resignation, death, and expulsion are the only way to remove a sitting US senator.

The Constitution doesn't allow for states to set their own terms for federal officeholders.

Senate terms are for six years, period.

Any attempt by a state to recall a US Senator would either be ignored by the Senate, or ruled unconstitutional for the same reasons term limits were in the 90s.

[cascadiance]

5. It appears though that many states have tried!

And perhaps in this case we should be for "states rights" to help us overcome this federally corporate corrupted hegemony that's in place now.

Maybe the Supreme Court might help in this area? I don't think this is necessarily a liberal/conservative issue!

And what if you have a senator who's like Terry Schiavo? Would that person be considered "dead" to allow for a new senator to get elected? Or would the state have a "noop" in power for the remainder of the term?...

Perhaps that's where expulsion happens. And in the case of Baucus (and perhaps the other 18 states that "allow" for these recalls), even if it requires the senate to expel him and not just a state recall election, if a recall election can happen and in effect make an advisory vote to the senate to expel him, that puts added pressure on the Senate to do what the people of Montana ask, or risk losing even more favor as a body that's increasingly not answering to the will of the people.

[tritsofme]

6. It is settled.

I edited my post before I saw your reply.

SCOTUS ruled state set term limits to be unconstitutional in the 90s.

This is a nonstarter.

[WeDidIt]

8. You have to amend the constitution in order to grant that power to the states

It's a power strictly reserved to the legislative branch of the federal government and thus, is prohibited from the several states.

You'd have to repeal the expulsion clause of Article 1, Section 5 of the cosntitution via amendment in order to alter that fact.

[tritsofme]

11. Good lord, if you have the votes to expel Baucus, then he is already irrelevant.

Expulsion is a rare and extreme act, mostly reserved for criminals that won't leave.

You would find about 0 votes.

We actually had the situation you described with Tim Johnson a few years back, and even though he was a vegetable for many months he provided the balance of power to the Democrats.

The GOP did some yelling about getting him to resign, but he has since recovered.

We have elections every six years, that is time to air your political greivances.

[cascadiance]

14. With Johnson though, he was conscious and there was no consensus of whether he was "brain dead" then

So, he wasn't really an equivalent situation to Terry Schiavo.

Maybe this law is unconstitutional. Maybe a lot of these laws mentioned on state books are ineffectual.

But if those state laws are there then the STATES have to abide by them, and THEY would need to allow for a process to go through (or they should strike down these laws as not being enforceable/implementable).

And it's kind of like an "advisory" state proposition that gets put on periodically on the California ballots. The proposition doesn't have teeth, but it is an advisory to the state legislature to do something about an issue (at their peril if they don't and the state votes for it). I'm saying that even if the constitutional says that this won't work, if we can in effect challenge the constitution and have this as a first step of making changes to make our government more accountable to us, then we can either get the courts to support us, or at least more people aware of how fixed the system is against us now and how the election will be so important in 2010 to demand those that run run for US and not for corporate interests.

We might not win directly (with getting rid of Baucus), but we could win indirectly, but having a more visible means of expressing the people's dissatisfaction of what he's done.

[WeDidIt]

17. There are ZERO state laws for recalling Senators

ZERO!

There are recall laws in some states, BUT ONLY FOR STATE OFFICIALS!

The constitution is clear, no state has the authority to remove a sitting Senator or representative and there are no states that even have such a law on the books since such an act has been unconstitutional since 1787. This is a power reserved to the federal government, so even a tenth amendment argument cannot hold water.

Give up this line of thinking, there is no possibility whatsoever of even making a gesture with it. You only make this site look foolish for even suggesting it.

[cascadiance]

19. The constitution was also clear that women had ZERO rights to vote too!

So, should they have just given up and not fought for womens' suffrage?

[cali]

22. you want to amend the Constitution, go for it, but the way to go for

it is not to push for an unconstitutional recall effort. that's a no-brainer.

[cascadiance]

40. Problem is, that these same people are who decide how the constitution is amended...

They won't do anything unless they feel pressured to do so.

Now there seems to be some laws that offer the ability to "recall" a senator. Though the constitution says otherwise. There are many times when people challenge what's in our federal laws, either through civil disobedience or other means, and through going to the courts too.

Perhaps not so much a direct attempt at a recall (which many here say is unconstitutional and therefore is "useless"). But if the mechanisms are there at the state level through going through the motions of such an election, and if enough support for it can happen, that can send a strong message to those in charge that the people aren't happy, and that gets magnified when people remember such events in coming elections.

Like I noted earlier, it's like the many "advisory" votes we voted on in California for state (or local) propositions too. Those votes don't have teeth, but they are a direct way to indicate public will to the state legislature.

If we have a vote and a clear admonition of Baucus's behavior on record from his state's residents, that is a clear public record of what's currently wrong with the system and how congress people like Baucus operate within it. We may also need to pressure congress in other ways too, to get amendments, as well, but having such votes might be the fuel to help a later amendment to happen.

[WeDidIt]

45. Then AMEND THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION!

That's the ONLY WAY to have a law to recall a Senator.

[cascadiance]

47. How do *I* ammend the constitution without myself getting elected to congress?

THEY are the ones that vote to ammend it, and THEY won't control THEIR own future, unless I put pressure on them. I can't ammend the constitution, but I CAN put pressure on them!

So, whatever way possible I can put pressure on them, I will. Is occupying a factory illegal after its been shut down? YOU BET! Many people are now following Argentinians' example and doing that now to deal with their inability through other means to combat workers' rights being exploited, especially now that the EFCS bill looks to be being abandoned now...

So, if I have a mechanism to "recall" a senator even if it doesn't *really* recall them, and its political theatre, that STILL may ultimately lead to something like this happening.

If you can tell me a way I can PERSONALLY ammend the fucking constitution, then you let me know! I think there's far more legal ways for me to launch a voter referendum against a sitting politician than for me to ammend the constitution!

[WeDidIt]

61. You're beginning to see the absolute FUTILITY of your idea

It cannot happen. You will never never ever recall a Senator.

[cascadiance]

66. First of all I was quoting ANOTHER person's idea...

... that appeared to be supported by other state laws from their article. They and other state entities I would say didn't share your notion that this idea was "absolute futility".

*I* may never recall a senator. Just like Martin Luther King never himself saw a black president, or Susan B. Anthony didn't see women have the right to vote. But they didn't let others dictate to them that it was "absolute futility" to try and change the system, and ultimately society changed to see the wisdom of what they were seeking.

So rather than just trying to say its impossible, why don't you try to say why it in fact is WRONG to try and do this, if that's what you believe. That's a separate discussion, but one you seem to be trying to avoid here by trying to dismiss the possibility of it happening out of hand with useless adjectives like "insane", etc.

[WeDidIt]

72. Dude, again, learn some basic civics

You probably should stay away from politics.

You obviously have no clue how things work.

:eyes:

[cascadiance]

76. Dude, learn some civility!

And stop with the condescending attitude of things are all WRITTEN and not to be changed or worked around, if you want to be on a message board like this! You obviously have no clue as to what drives people into politics and places like this. We don't come here to be "subservient" to rules that someone lectures us that we don't know about if we contend with the way they are being used.

I'm sure we'd never count on you to be a worker to stay in the factory at Republic Windows, since you would have just told them to "learn the law" and walked away and lost your pension and your benefits like they would have had they not stayed and fought the system that was being used against them.

[WeDidIt]

80. I'm not the one writing OPs calling for unconstitutional recalls

:eyes:

[cascadiance]

82. Sorry that dialogue seems to "offend" your sense of civility...

Perhaps if you are really offended, you should go and seek out and email the person who wrote those original articles I linked to and lecture them about "civics". That would be more constructive perhaps, unless you don't feel up to it!

[WeDidIt]

84. Civility ended when you suggested illegal activities to change the system n/t

[cascadiance]

89. No civility ended when you treated people like me as if I was trying to ask people to rob a bank!

There's a difference between knowingly ask someone to break the law (especially for selfish purposes), and one that looks to find ways of working within the system to fight laws or organizational structure that people find wrong. You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between those two notions, and wish to treat anyone that doesn't want to "follow the rules" without question as a criminal.

[WeDidIt]

93. You went after me when I explained very nicely that what you suggested was unconstitutional

And the final example of your uncivil behaviour was claiming you'd put me on ignore, then not doing so.

So stick that in your "uncivil" and suck on it.

[WeDidIt]

23. Yep, Susan B. Anthony started the process for women's suffrage

She died long before this was ratified:

Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So if you want to allow states the power to recall Senators, all you have to do is follow this:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

So there you go.

I'll tell you something, though. Max Baucus would be dead and buried LONG before you get this through, just like Susan B. Anthony was dead and buried before the 19th Amendment was ratified.

[cascadiance]

27. Martin Luther King also died before Obama was elected...

And even RFK predicted a black president would happen some time in the future not long before he was assassinated.

Should he and those who worked with him just have given up just because they died before their dreams they fought for became real?

These are issues that are problems people have worked on for generations. Just because you can't solve them quickly or don't have immediate power to do so, doesn't mean that you should give up, or listen to people "laughing" at you for your efforts to try, as hard as it might be at the time you try.

[WeDidIt]

29. Dude, amending the constitution for recalls won't EVER happen

There are no recalls at the federal level for a reason.

It's insane.

[cascadiance]

35. "insane" isn't a reason. You might want to explain yourself here...

If it is insane to have recalls, then why do they have them at the state level then? Are those states that allow them "insane"?

As I noted, the constitution is ALWAYS a work in progress! There ALWAYS times to push for ammendments. Many gay people would say the same thing is needed for their protections now at the constitutional level too.

I would say that we need some constitutional protection for accountability. Heck, the corporations didn't even need a constitutional ammendment to have "corporate personhood" rights. They just needed to have a court clerk write a head note that "concluded" that they had these rights in a judicial activist way, and have used that "right" to help them get the stranglehold they have over our congress that they have now.

It's all about power and financial power. To combat that, we need laws, and we need to have visibility to the current laws not being adequate. That's what I'm advocating. Many other countries have "no confidence" votes that trigger new elections too. This isn't something that's a "fringe element" crazy idea, any more than single payer health care is (which most other countries in the world have in place now too).

[WeDidIt]

36. At the federal level, recalls are insane.

You have enough problems at the federal level with congresspersons and senators jockeying for the elections.

If you think the system is corrupt now, introduce recalls.

By way of demonstration I present California circa 2003.

[cascadiance]

39. If you had a 2/3rds requirement for recall, it wouldn't have happened in 2003!

It was only 55% against Davis then..

Like I said, you put the barometer high enough to keep this from happening so that it is only used in extreme cases.

I think in the case of Baucus, he's basically ignoring at least 2/3rds of Montana, because he thinks he can as there's not enough to challenge him in terms of consequences for his actions.

The same with Proposition 8. There's ALSO a reason that constitutional ammendments at the federal level have 2/3rds majority requirements too. If that had been followed with statewide propositions in California that seek to ammend its consitution, then you wouldn't have the trash like Proposition 8 passing either!

But having a recall in place forces someone like Baucus to at least try to keep around half of his constituency happy, or else he'll face the music. He feels NO immediate pressure now, except from his lobbyists!

If you really want to fix the "insanity" of our elections, perhaps we should try to find some ways of limiting what gets spent on them as other countries do, to trim down both the length and amount of "jockeying" that goes on with them, which I contend doesn't really help us necessarily get a better decision happening, just more money spent on ads, etc. that our media loves!

[WeDidIt]

42. The 2/3 requirement already exists

2/3 of the House they serve in.

It has served us very well for 222 years.

I would fight tooth and nail against ANY effort to amend the constitution to alter Section 5 of Article I.

[cascadiance]

48. I was talking about STATE constitution ammendments. Prop 8 DID NOT get 2/3rds of the vote!

But it DID seek to change the California state constitution, barring the courts overturning it of course!

You didn't need a 2/3rds vote to recall the governor of California. It wouldn't have happened if it were a 2/3rds vote.

2/3rds vote is for a constitutional ammendment *CAST BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE*, NOT the people!

I'm saying if you have a recall, or no-confidence vote that you could have as a referendum that requires a 2/3rds vote, then you'd have:

a) a way for people to hold the government accountable when they cross the line in corrupt activities, etc.

b) by having a 2/3rds vote requirement, it wouldn't be just partisan votes that would push people out of office. It would require 2/3rds of your constitutency to vote you out, which probably means that you shouldn't have been voted in to begin with, if you lost over a third of those who voted you into office supporting you.

[WeDidIt]

52. A state constitutional amendment won't do diddly fuck

You need to amend the United States constitution to change it.

So the only way to do what you want to do is oulined in Article V of the constitution.

Good luck with that.

[cascadiance]

54. That's not what I was saying...

I REALIZE that you need a constitutional amendment to change it. I ALSO reallize that I can't just WISH the congress to pass a congressional amendment to change it, NOR am I prepared to do NOTHING about it. YOU were claiming that the state recall efforts were what makes messes.

I was noting that YES, they do make messes when they don't require super majorities like federal constitutional ammendments do. And I also noted that when states don't require super majorities to pass constitutional ammendments on referendums that they ALSO create messes.

So again:

I'm not arguing that we change the 2/3rds majority rule for constitutional ammendments. I'm actually saying that those should also be used at the state level for both constitutional ammendments and recalls *at the state level*, for similar reasons.

Though I started out saying we should look at a recall, based on some references on another site, I myself noted in a post in this thread that the NY Times said this wasn't possible. It obviously has been attempted at times, and probably some states vs. national laws in place. I say OK, we can't constitutionally recall a senator on federal law basis.

However, I conjecture we MIGHT be able to have state resolutions passed that do things like "censure", give "advisory" guidance to the senate that perhaps a senator such as Baucus is engaged in practices that a supermajority of Montanans finds objectionable and not supporting their interest. I also feel that going through this process can establish evidence that a majority of Montanans (if such a referendum were passed sizably) feel that Max Baucus is being negligent in his duties representing them in the Senate. A gesture like that, if ignored by the Senate, puts those in the Senate that much more at risk of losing their subsequent election bids in their own states, if their own people see that they choose to ignore a state like Montana's cry that their Senator is not representing their interests and is representing corporate interests instead, since senators DO have the power to expel Max Baucus where the rest of us don't. This might put added pressure for the Senate to take some form of action against Baucus. It might even help in facilitating taking away his chairmanship which might go a ways towards solving this problem.

We're in times where the favorability ratings of congress has been even lower than Bush's was. It got a spike after the election, but be prepared for them to go down, if they do more for corporate interests than the people agenda continues as it appears to be now.

I don't see why you are so dead set against this... Don't you want congressional representatives and senators to be answerable to the people and not feel like they have a free pass the way they only have to worry every six years (in the case of Senators), and have the primaries in many cases "fixed" so that they don't really get anyone to contend with them, even if most people would like to see them replaced (albeit perhaps not with the Republican that the Republicans put up against them in the general election).

[WeDidIt]

55. Start to finsih, amending the constitution takes minimum one decade

Good luck with that, especially wioth an amendment that won't even get majority support, let alone super majority support.

[cascadiance]

59. Ultimately the goal is to have a congress that is more accountable to the people...

... not necessarily having a constitutional amendment doing a direct recall of a senator or other federal employee.

If having "advisory" vote referendums at a state level against someone like Baucus helps with that equation that puts pressure on the Senate to expel that member of congress who is corrupt, then that's a battle won in this fight, even if it doesn't lead to the solution of a constitutional amendment.

Right now, the senate and congress would appear to feel untouchable from the likes of the people, as they don't seem to care too much about supporting what is in the interest of the people, as they know that without some other prodding, and with a compliant corporate media, they aren't going to get challenged on their actions.

That's where we need creative solutions to challenge them.

Again, the goal isn't necessarily to get a constitutional amendment, as that is an almost impossible task, especially when it involves a law that limits the power of those that actually vote on this amendment.

The goal is to have their political futures more threatened when they don't do the job the people want them to do, which isn't necessarily a direct recall, but at least a confirmed mandate from the people that removal should happen.

[WeDidIt]

60. YIPPEEE!!!!!

LEt's spend millions of dollars on a vote of the people THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT!!!

Oh yeah, you'll get tons of support for that!

:eyes:

[cascadiance]

65. Kind of like the so-called Credit card bill of rights we spent so much money on them passing...

which ALSO doesn't MEAN SHIT (given that it has no real teeth to do anything constructive)...

Yes, there are a lot of things that don't "mean shit". A lot of things are done for publicity and to bring an issue to the fore of the people. That can be good or bad.

Right now we have a non-functional media that doesn't do shit either except things like find out if Britney's exposing herself somewhere or other equally meaningless crap! Before a government whistleblower like "Deep Throat" would have gone to a Woodward/Bernstein team to help them uncover wrongdoing in the government and expose it in the press. Faced with that not being available today, many whistleblowers try other means that perhaps weren't tried before (like taking the government to court, with the hopes that they won't use State Secrets privilege to shut down the case). Yeah, a lot of money is spent on these battles, and in many cases nothing is accomplished.

But if you give up and don't do anything, you've lost your democracy! PERIOD!

[WeDidIt]

71. Call your congressman and Senators

That's all you can do until the next election.

Seriously, dude, learn some basic civics.

:eyes:

[cascadiance]

75. Seriously, I think you're the last person I want as an activist!

That only accepts the system as it is, and doesn't appear to want to change it, and just tells people that want to push change where they can a very condescending message of "learn some civics", as if they weren't aware already of many of the rules you claim to be "educating" them with!

Learn some history! Things don't stay the same, and people that are frustrated and DO have some real beefs with the way the current system is set up, which has lead us to the many crises that our country currently faces, will look to TALK about other options, whether they have inherent road blocks or not, as I tried to do with this thread, but you seem to be someone that's protecting the Senate's "free reign" as if the laws that are written are immutable as one might have in rule by a kingdom, and not worthy of discussing to change.

A lot of what changed in the 60's (and back in the 30's) changed because those in power thought the alternative to the changes that were made was because people might do revolution instead, which would have changed things to the point that the constitution was meaningless. You have to be willing to push that envelope too, if you're going to get anything changed, or become a sheep that's willing to be pushed into the ground. Pardon me for not wanting to be the sheep that you feel everyone should be.

[WeDidIt]

83. YOU pushed changing the system ILLEGALLY

so don't spew your crap at me.

[cascadiance]

86. i'm ending this conversation and putting you on ignore...

This has really broken down and I'm tired of being INSULTED! The article at the beginning was claiming this process was LEGAL. I was asking for others to talk about it, not getting lectured by you!

That's it for me!!! Enjoy your small and structured and perfect life that doesn't need any change!

[WeDidIt]

87. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

All you ever had to do was admit you were wrong.

But no, tyoo much of an egotist to do that.

[Stephanie]

51. And Jeanette Rankin, of Montana, was the first woman in Congress, elected in 1916

Irrelevant fact but I just love Jeannette Rankin, AND Montana! :)

[WeDidIt]

7. No United States Senator or United States Representative can be recalled under the constitution

It's unconsitutional:

United States Constitution

Article I

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

[cascadiance]

12. I see here that the two houses can expel their own members...

... and "shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members", which theoretically if followed more to the hilt might allow them to put in place their own criteria and ignore elections to "qualify" members of their body.

The fact that we have so many different methodologies of electing even federal officials now with our elections, and that states have a large role of determining how elections are run, etc. I think could provide a basis for challenging this notion that ultimately only the senate or the house can be the determining factor of who gets removed from office.

My guess is that they know if they try to come down hard on states to do elections the way they want them (and/or rig them the way they want them), even if they might have constitutional power to do so, they don't because they'd wind up with a heavy backlash that would likely wind up in front of SCOTUS.

Perhaps this is something that we can research to at least go through the motions that states have provided for us to have such a vote (to use them to in effect have a state referendum), so that even if it doesn't result directly in someone like Baucus getting thrown out, puts heavy pressure on the Senate to do what the state of Montana wants or risk losing subsequent elections themselves when other state residents are feeling that their power is being stolen from them too. Max Baucus would be a perfect candidate for this sort of recall, where he could be an official that more clearly than most demonstrates that he's not working for the people of Montana (or the U.S.), and therefore would rally support moreso than attempted recalls of other politicians. If it could wind up before the Supreme Court, and expose these people for the corporate serving scum they are, then win or lose, I think it could be made to be a win for all of us to increase awareness of the mess our government's becoming.

[WeDidIt]

13. YOU CANNOT RECALL A SENATOR

Give it up or you'll look like the birther assholes who are holding their "citizen grand juries" to indict Obama.

And you'll be as effective.

And I'll be the first in line to mock you for an idiotic move.

[cascadiance]

15. So sir, how do YOU recommend we challenge our government to enact single payer health care?

When it is becoming more an more evident each day to citizens of both parties that the government is RIGGED to not support democratic or representative rule of the people any more, and only there to support themselves and those who fund their campaigns to keep their jobs.

You have to start somewhere, and I think more and more people will see that we have to use every avenue we can to try and contest government power when it is being misused, especially the way that BOTH parties are misusing it now! I think many more people will be angry with you than will be laughing at me at trying to find a chink in the armor of this system.

[WeDidIt]

16. Don't ask me

I'm just telling you, trying to recall a Senator is a non-starter because it is unconstitutional.

You'd be laughed out of any state election office where you attempted to file petitions to make it happen.

You'd look like a fool, and rightly so, because there is ONE WAY to remove a sitting Senator from office and that is by expulsion by two-thirds of the Senate.

So if you want Baucus out, convince 67 of his peers in the Senate he should go.

[cascadiance]

18. Yes, the constitution also said that women weren't allowed to vote. Were women "fools"...

... for challenging the system in those days too?

NO! It's becoming increasingly apparent to many people in this country that the level of corruption due to the inadequate provisions for citizen oversight other than horrendously corrupted periodic elections needs changing!

I'm simply advocating that we challenge the constitution where some of us feel it is FLAWED given current problems that result from this FLAW of having these so-called "representatives" not representing us any more.

We may lose. But those of you who laugh, are are also laughing at others that challenged our constitution (and fought for ammendments many times in the past). I'm not saying it's something easily solved, or that its even achievable. But those of us who are going to continue to stand back and be spectators while our country is dying (and the planet is also dying of a limited life span of climate change that these folks don't want to do anything constructive about) in my mind are making the mistake, not those that are willing to challenge the system at times.

Yes, in most cases, trying to recall a Senator is viewed as something to laugh at as a "partisan" effort to try and disrupt the system. But Baucus offers us a unique opportunity to define those cases where we truly have a corrupt congress member that is demonstrably not doing his job, and that we can make the case for some means for the people to demand that he be either removed or punished for this sort of behavior. So many other Senators there are a lot more levels of gray to make such an effort that much harder.

I see other Montanans having similar feelings that I do as noted here on this page...

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/05/16/news/local/znews06.txt

...
Dmon wrote on May 15, 2009 1:28 PM:

" I'm not talking about "threats of recall", I'm talking about starting the process right here in MT, and doing a recall. The righties pretty much all hate Max, and now a good portion of the Dems hold Max in low regard as well. It shouldn't be difficult to get 60% or 70% of voters to reject him. We can fight over who will be his replacement later. Whomever it would be, couldn't be much worse the mad-max. "
...

Even if this is a beauty contest vote. Like this guys says, I think it might not be too hard to get a state-wide vote to show a huge amount of the people not supporting him, which should send a message to congress and the rest of the country that things need to change.

[WeDidIt]

20. SO HOW THE FUCK DID WOMEN GET THE RIGHT TO VOTE???

Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

They got the constitution AMENDED, that's how.

So if you want to allow states the power to recall Senators, all you have to do is follow this:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

So there you go.

I'll tell you something, though. Max Baucus would be dead and buried LONG before you get this through, just like Susan B. Anthony was dead and buried before the 19th Amendment was ratified.

[cascadiance]

26. Do you think that the congress then would have voted in that ammendment with a PASSIVE populace?

NO! They were *pressured* into putting it in place. Even FDR was *pressured* into doing the New Deal when he felt the threat of revolution from other parts of the country (as Laura Flanders noted on GRITtv yesterday).

We have to find some way to break through the corporatist media, and other barriers (of which there are SO many now) to challenge the accountability of these congress people that are increasingly ignoring us. I'm simply trying to say that we should look into the state laws that are already in place that would provide us an ability for the people of Montana to *pressure* congress to say that Baucus is not doing his job, and perhaps extend that vote to further say that Montanans feel that congress should provide an ability to recall (or perhaps have at least a no-confidence vote) for elected officials when they becomee unresponsive or hopelessly corrupt. The latter could also be "advisory" referendums in other states too, even if not a recall effort directed at a single senator like Baucus.

I might be dead and buried before we have a congress that's responsive to what the people want too, but that doesn't mean I should give up and SELL OUT those in future generations from having a world that fixes these problems. That's the way other activists have worked, and is the way we should here too. I'm sure Martin Luther King would feel that way after seeing Obama getting elected last year too.

I'm familiar with the concerns some have with recalls, where they don't want to allow it to happen too often to force politicians to be in constant campaign mode against single issue voters, etc. But if you make the threshold large enough (like a 2/3rds vote, etc.) then perhaps it would allow for cases like Baucus where they could get a more universal consensus on him being someone who should be removed so that it only gets used in cases where the congress person involved is truly screwing up, as Baucus is now.

[WeDidIt]

28. There is NO concern over recalls because recalls don't exist at the federal level.

The only way the House would expel Traficant was for the asshole to be convicted of crimes and still not quit.

The standard for expulsion is high and has only ever occurred when crimes have been committed.

Disagreeing with a Senator on an issue is not a reason for expulsion.

This is part of why the ability to recall Senators does not exist. There is enough bullshit with Senators and Congresscritters worrying about re-election, let alone recall potentials.

And I would fight tooth and nail AGAINST any effort to amend the constitution in order to allow recall of federal authorities. It's an insanely STUPID idea.

I disagree with Baucus on health care, but what you suggest doing is just plain nuts.

[cascadiance]

32. The problem is that these people are making the laws in addition to abiding by them...

And when they craft laws (like campaign finance laws) that in effect makes bribery legal, that keeps us from going after Baucus for committing crimes of allowing himself to use his office to conduct legislation to pay back those bribes (that his group of people say *aren't* bribes). Can't you see the conflict of interest here that is CRYING for oversight. Can't you see that this system is now SO corrupt with corporate bribery that we are at the precipice of losing any sort of democratic rule whatsoever?

WHY is trying to find a way to have government officials be kept accountable to us the voters an "insanely stupid" idea, unless you are also apart of this corrupt government structure that just rewards from within and doesn't respond to the people its supposed to govern?

I'm not saying to make it simple, because, LIKE YOU, I don't want to have this be an every day event, and should only be used when an official is truly going against the wishes of a sizable majority of his states' residents, which in most cases would mean that he's being bribed to do that (and doesn't feel like he'll be made to pay for it, because those that are bribing him - aka the media, and other corporate interests will protect him and try to help him overcome this scrutiny/rejection through disinformation and help to coverup his actions serving them). Baucus is an example of someone that's having a hard time covering up his actions in the finance committee for health care "reform" without having to go to closed door sessions, given what's happened the last few weeks.

Unless he feels potential consequences for this sort of scrutiny (or for that matter, unless many others in congress, especially senators with six year terms, feel scrutiny for their actions), they'll continue to do them at the expense of our country's future if it gets them a buck and helps them retain power.

This isn't just about "disagreeing" with a senator. A MAJORITY of Americans (and I would wager Montanans as well) disagree with him. He's supposed to represent the interests of a MAJORITY of Americans! WHY isn't he doing so? The answer is he is CORRUPT! And he controls the system that keeps his sort of corruption from being against the law. Not questioning that in my book is what I think most people here would call "insane", not those that are trying to find ways of making them accountable to us.

[WeDidIt]

34. First, are you a Montanan?

If not, you've got no right to bitch because he's Montana's choice.

If you are, you should have thought about this last year.

The power to remove them exists.

It's called ELECTIONS.

[cascadiance]

37. I have a RIGHT to bitch because only HE has the right to set the agenda of the Finance committee

And therefore it's my fight too, when it comes to issues like this!

Elections happen every six years. There are many consequences to waiting that long for many things. If we have senators stand in the way of effective climate change legislation, the world might be doomed in six years! And of course in election years, it is typical for the media to manipulate what is heard to help others get elected. WHY didn't the NY Times publish the story in 2004 about the domestic spying they knew about before that election? Well, that helped us get Bush elected another four years. You KNOW that they'd come up with some other means to misinform the voters before Baucus goes up for election again too.

If you have a recall mechanism (even if it has high barriers of entity, like a 2/3rds vote), you at least have it so there's less means of manipulating the voter into keeping them in power.

[WeDidIt]

43. No, it's the choice of Montanans, not yours

Montana likes MAx Baucus very much. They proved it last year when they re-elected him in a landslide.

So you can disagree with him, but you have no right whatsoever to seek his removal.

He has violated no law.

[cascadiance]

49. He's putting legislation in place responding to bribes, which in many of our books...

IS breaking the law! Now it's not explicitly against the law, but when the legislative system comes as corrupt as it has been, it starts to lose respect from many of the citizenry like it has me, and many people will start to stop respecting the laws it passes, that more and more are self-serving instead of serving the people.

It's like saying that those torturing people "weren't breaking the law" because Bush's Justice Department lawyers tried to claim they weren't.

I wonder if Montana would say the same thing now, knowing NOW how he wants to just do what the companies want with health care and disregarding what the citizens want!

And if I have no right in being upset with him because he is a representative of Montana (and doesn't affect me), then he shouldn't be allowed to have unchecked control over the finance committee where he DOES affect all of us, and therefore should have those actions answerable to all of us.

Many people came in from out of state to California to help with campaigning for the special election in my district to replace Duke Cunningham too! I welcomed them with open arms. Yes, and Duke Cunningham was the overwhelming favorite in previous elections before his constituency learned the truth about him too! They certainly didn't support his criminal actions that they didn't know about when they voted him overwhelmingly to the congress before those actions were exposed.

[WeDidIt]

56. Montana has no say in the matter again until 2014

They made their choice and must luive with it now.

You really need to learn how the system works.

[WeDidIt]

57. Montana has no say in the matter again until 2014

They made their choice and must luive with it now.

You really need to learn how the system works.

[cascadiance]

62. I don't need lectures on how "the system works"...

Hey, tell that to the author of the document that was written there, that referenced many constitutional and other legal statutes by number. I don't think those were manufactured from thin air, even if perhaps they are all rendered obsolete by a court decision saying that constitutional law rules them invalid.

Laws change. Courts change too. A few years ago, if someone wanted to get rid of habeus corpus, that would have sounded impossible too. but look what those criminals did to work against that, and arguably they were successful at doing it and not not paying any price for it!

I'm not prepared to say that Baucus or other Senators are untouchable "gods" for six years just because they get elected. The laws/constitution may make it difficult to unseat them or punish them for misdeeds, but ultimately they are citizens like us, and ultimately they need to craft law that applies equally to all of us (the constitution demands it), and ultimately they need to answer to those laws too (the constitution also demands that).

You may want to worship him for six years in his position and wait for single payer health care that long, but pardon me while the rest of us try to find many different ways to change things.

[WeDidIt]

63. You sure as hell could have fooled me

when you started a thread about recalling a Senator when it's unconstitutional.

:eyes:

And you would have absolutely HATED Senators prior to the 17th amendment because it was your State LEgislature that determined who became a Senator.

IT took the 17th amendment to even allow a popular vote within the state to determine Senators.

[cascadiance]

68. Umm...

Read this post, which was before almost everyone else wrote back that it was unconstitutional and look at the bottom link there...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5696547&mesg_id=5696739

Hey, I was asking for discussion of something that some others claimed to be true, and yes, if it were something that were true, I'd have liked to try and use it.

But hey, I note that federal law disagrees with what appears to be a whole slew of state statutes that tried to contend with it. If there is that sort of state vs. federal contention in the past, why not revisit that again? Especially at a time like now, when congressional approval is near record recorded lows.

Yes, I'm aware of the older system that had the state legislature determine who the senator was, largely due to mechanics in those days of trying to conduct a statewide election, etc. too.

So, would you have told people to hang it up before the 17th amendment was passed if they'd asked you to change the way of appointing senators to be an elected position? Would you have told them then that it was insane to pursue that since that change since it would "NEVER happen" and require a 2/3rds majority to amend the constitution?

Or would you have worked more for democracy then to get things changed?

[WeDidIt]

70. You brought it upon yourself

One word.

Google

You could have learned a lot.

:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Senators and Congressmen are not subject to recall

The Constitution clearly states the terms that Senators serve.

[ShortnFiery]

21. Then we need to clean out The Senate of "Corporation's First" Democrats

in their very next Primary. ;)

[cali]

24. good luck with that.

I'm all for primary challenges but the reality is that most people dislike others' congress critters while liking their own.

[ShortnFiery]

25. Hey, you do what you have to. Along with helping to form strong UNIONS. nt

[cali]

41. what I have to do is vote for my incumbents

that's my way of helping the Congress to be better.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Baucus' next primary will be in 2014

He was just reelected last year. No Democrat ran against him in the primary:

http://sos.mt.gov/Elections/archives/2000s/2008/primary/2008_State_Primary.pdf

And he beat his Republican opponent in a landslide:

http://sos.mt.gov/Elections/archives/2000s/2008/results/2008_State_General.pdf

[WeDidIt]

31. He has free rein to do as he pleases

I'm glad somebody on DU understands how things work.

I wish the OP had taken a basic Civics course at some point in their life.

[cascadiance]

38. And THAT is what is wrong with the system! THAT is what needs changing?

This isn't about a civics lesson. It is about a lesson on finding ways for the grass roots for being in power of their country again, and not *accepting* others saying they don't simply because they say so.

[WeDidIt]

44. So you don't like elections?

Move to North Korea where things aren't settled in elections.

[cascadiance]

50. Who said I don't like elections?

YOU said he should have "free reign" to do what he wants until the next election happens.

I said NO, he was voted in to work for the people, and in my book, and in many other systems around the world, there are checks to make sure that officials like this do that and don't have just "free reign" to do what they want to reward themselves and their cronies.

[WeDidIt]

58. An election gave Baucus free rein

and another election isn't held for that seat until 2014.

I really don't see what's so tough about getting how this shit works.

[cascadiance]

77. Do you think I DON'T understand that he's not up for election until 2014?

That doesn't mean we can't find other ways to force him from exercising unchecked power. Again stop enough with your condescending *know it all* attitude that masks your unwillingness to work for changing the system.

If you want to provide something useful to this thread, why don't you come up with some USEFUL ways to challenge what's happening in the finance committee that he chairs and offer that as an alternative to recalling him! THAT might be something others would appreciate instead of your stupid "civics lessons" that just look to shut down any kind of conversation on what might be done. That's the kind of response that others would value, instead of your condescending and message of "accept your fate" that nothing can be done.

[WeDidIt]

79. Yes, I think you DON'T understand this shit

as evidenced by your OP.

:eyes:

[cascadiance]

81. Hey, I was quoting someone else that claimed it was possible...

Just because I said that there was someone who claimed that there were some state laws that allowed for recalls of senators buried someplace, and ALSO quoted the NY Times that said the constitution didn't allow for this BEFORE you tried to lecture me about your notion of "civics" doesn't mean I don't understand that we have elections for senatorial terms every six years! I'm fast looking towards putting you on ignore, as you seem to provide no useful dialogue other than just trying to put people down to fuel your own inflated sense of self-importance.

:eyes:

[WeDidIt]

85. And you were too ignorant or lazy to use Google

Yeah.

Right.

I ain't buying it.

Take a Civics course.

[cascadiance]

88. Hey I've WORKED at a company doing search engines...

How do you think I found the original articles if I didn't know how to "google"...

So jerk, see a shrink and take some courses on civility and persuasion. You can't FORCE people to acquiesce towards your view of the world. Bye!

[WeDidIt]

90. Ah, so you aren't putting me on ignore

Typical.

[cascadiance]

91. Hmm.. Your inflated ego wants to have you have the last word every place...

Go ahead... This is my last response to you. Talk to yourself now! Hmm... Your use of the word "typical". Have these sorts of conversations often? Sounds like a pattern with you.

[WeDidIt]

92. You said above you were putting me on ignore

Then you didn't.

Typical.

[Cleita]

33. An easier way would be to petition that the health care issue should

be heard by the Committee on Health Care, Education, Labor and Pensions that is chaired by Edward M. Kennedy. I don't understand why this went to the Finance Committee to begin with. Kennedy is not a single payer advocate but he's not so stubborn that he wouldn't give the single payer advocates a seat at the hearings to state their case. Maybe a barrage of phone calls and emails to Harry Reid might give him a change of heart.

[Bushknew]

46. WHO HAS THE POWER TO STRIP HIM OF HIS CHAIRMANSHIP?

[WeDidIt]

53. Under the rules of the Senate, nobody.

He cannot lose his chairmanship until 2011 at the earliest when the new Congress convenes unless he is expelled from the Senate before then.

[Bushknew]

64. It's ridiculous that the President nor the people get to decide this. What a sham...

The chairmanship of any committee should not be a right. What a sham democracy.

[WeDidIt]

74. The people DID decide this

Collectively, the people sent who they sent to the Senate.

That's the extent of the people's decision.

Cosntitutionally, the Senate has the power to write the rules of the Senate.

Learn some damned Civics ferchrissakes.

:eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

69. They can pass a new organizing resolution and remove him if they wanted

But they aren't going to.

[WeDidIt]

73. Niow we're back to requiring a super majority

Ain't gonna happen.

[cascadiance]

78. Yes, it sounds like the fillibuster rules that also could be changed, but that they won't...

Perhaps the rules system is the thing we can push on from the outside and challenge those like Reid to "fix things" if they get out of hand too much. Yeah, I know that strategy is still an uphill battle.

[sofa king]

67. But you can probably reprint this old Onion article.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33420

I'm Such A Shitty Senator

By Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
May 2, 2001 | Issue 37•16

I've been "serving" the great state of Montana in the U.S. Senate since 1978. You'll notice I put "serving" in quotes, because, let's face it, I suck. My wife has been pleading with me not to say this publicly, insisting that it's not true, that I'm a capable and dedicated public servant, blah, blah, blah. Bless her dear heart, but she's just being nice. Because, folks, I am telling you, I am hands-down the shittiest senator in the history of the Senate. The worst.

_________________________________