Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate

[zeljko67]

HELENA) - Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december252011/ndaa-recall.php

[teddy51]

1. Good for them, and any States that have recall should do the same! n/t

[TheWraith]

2. Except that you cannot recall federal elected officials.

Not even in Montana.

[teddy51]

6. Thanks, didn't know that! n/t

[shraby]

35. They have to be impeached.

[sulphurdunn]

37. The Constitution

does not state that, nor has any federal court ruled on the matter so far as I know. It is unclear whether or not federal courts even have standing to rule on such an issue. Amendment X, however, suggests that the people do have the right to recall their own representatives for cause.

[TheWraith]

42. Yes, federal courts HAVE ruled that recall laws do not apply to fed officials.

And using the tenth amendment to try and create a new right of recall is stretching to the extreme.

[sulphurdunn]

46. I've researched this matter

further, and you are correct.

[suston96]

3. The linked article states that US Senators .....

....cannot be recalled.

Also says courts have upheld this prohibitive.

[zeljko67]

7. Says a New Jersey State judge has upheld it for his state.

Which means nothing for Montana. And secondly they can be recalled under Montana law for breaking their oath of office.

Federal courts have yet to deal with the issue.

Either way, all these bastards need to be removed either through recall or the election process..so how about we just forget the D or R behind their name and find people who will restore our bill of rights...Yes, Obama is one of the D's that also needs to be removed for his support of the bill.

[Ian David]

22. But he issued a signing statement denouncing that part of the bill. n/t

[former9thward]

49. A signing statement has no legal meaning.

Just a PR gimmick. If he was really opposed he could have vetoed it. Congress might of passed it again over his veto but at least he would have gone on record of truly being against it.

[LiberalFighter]

51. They might be able to recall an elected official for breaking their state oath of office.

But cannot recall an elected official for breaking the the federal oath of office. And the federal is the only one that counts for federal officials.

[Major Hogwash]

36. Can you imagine what kind of Congress we would have if they let this crap happen?

The Senators would never get anything done because they would always be fighting off recall elections back home.

About 44 years ago, some knucklehead in Northern Idaho started a recall petition to recall Senator Frank Church.

From wikipedia --

In 1967, a recall campaign was waged against Church by Ron Rankin, a Republican county commissioner in Kootenai County in northern Idaho. Rankin unsuccessfully sued Idaho's secretary of state to accept recall petitions. The U.S. District Court for Idaho ruled that the state's recall laws did not apply to U.S. senators and that such a recall would violate the U.S. Constitution. Allan Shepard, Idaho's attorney general at the time, agreed with the court's decision.

"It must be pointed out that a United States senator is not a state officer but a federal officer whose position is created by Article I, Section I of the United States Constitution," Shepard wrote in a June 17, 1967, opinion for the secretary of state. "There seems to be no provision for canvassing the votes of a recall election of a United States senator."

Source -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church#Political_career

[malaise]

4. Obey the constitution or suffer the consequences

Rec

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Why the fuss?

I trust this president - and any president - to do the right thing. Courts and judges only slow things down.

[zeljko67]

9. Trust him to do what???

He asked for the language of indefitie Military detainment for US citizens...He already broke his promise with regard to ending the patrtiot act and now does this, and you say you trust this president.. WTF are you smoking??

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Why do you hate our Democratic president?

We should trust him to know wbo to imprison and execute. Anything less just shows our hatred.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Yeah, kinda.

I wanted to see what it feels like to be practical for once.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. And those of us who know you

went mental

[MannyGoldstein]

32. It felt good to be practical.

I might try it again in the future. Very relaxing. is bliss.

[Robb]

8. Did any of you read the article?

It says one of the two men spearheading this effort is the national president of the goddamn OATHKEEPERS.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers

Fuck these guys. No apologia for racist militia fuckers, please!

[tammywammy]

10. Aside from that, you cannot recall senators

How do people not know that?

[BlueToTheBone]

39. They're republican oathkeepers

who don't need to know the stinking constitution. They know what's right!

[onenote]

50. From what I've seen over the years, a lot of DUers don't seem to know that

Despite it being pointed out over and over

[tammywammy]

52. I've noticed that as well.

You'd think that would be covered under Constitution 101.

[bhikkhu]

11. No surprise - and the guy probably hasn't read the bill, or the constitution either

...which is all the danger of jumping on a big hyperbole-driven bandwagon; you never know what kind of idiot is driving.

[zeljko67]

15. Everybody has read the fkn bill.

And the FKN bill. Let Al Franken help you understand the fkn bill....

Response to a Citizen of his District:

On December 15, 2011, the Senate passed a bill including provisions on detention that I found simply unacceptable. These provisions are inconsistent with the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the system our Founders established. And while I did in fact vote for an earlier version of the legislation, I did so with the hope that the final version would be significantly improved. That didn't happen, and so I could not support the final bill.

The bill that passed included several problematic provisions, the worst of which could allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely, without charge or trial, even if they're on U.S. soil. Another provision requires the military-not civilian law enforcement agencies like the FBI-to detain anyone that it believes to be a member of al Qaeda or an associated force and who helped plan or carry out an attack on the U.S. or its allies. At their core, these provisions will radically alter how we investigate, arrest, and detain individuals suspected of terrorism. This leaves it unclear what role the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are to play, despite their proven effectiveness at preventing attacks on our homeland since September 11th. This comes despite deep concerns voiced by FBI Director Robert Mueller before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I'm a member. What's more, these provisions could undermine the safety of our troops stationed abroad.

During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, I expressed my strong opposition to these provisions on the floor of the Senate. I filed two amendments to strip each of the provisions, but unfortunately neither received a vote. I also voted in favor of several amendments that would have made significant improvements to the provisions; none of these passed..."

Pretty straight forward...

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Be practical

All reasonable people understand that courts and due process have no place in a post-9/11 world.

Franken is a purist.

[Robb]

38. Manny, have your fun but don't line up with Rhodes.

The Oath Keepers are not your friends.

[bhikkhu]

29. ...then they would see that ending the war (and so retiring the AUMF) is the solution

...and recalling senators is neither here nor there, unless their position on the war is problematic.

[zeljko67]

12. So that makes it wrong...

Fkn wakeup...INDEFINITE MILITARY DETAINMENT of US citizens for being suspected of other thing Beligerent acts and associations...

I wonder why the oath keepers would be upset with people breakiong their oath..wtf

[Robb]

14. This is Paulite militia nonsense, and you're spreading it.

[Robb]

18. We're coming for your guns next.

[Robb]

24. I don't want to help Birther militia remove Democratic senators.

I'm funny that way.

[Ter]

33. But it's true

Regardless of who mentions it

[FarPoint]

44. May I suggest you watch the Showtime

Series, Homeland.....It is deep.....may help enlighten one who makes uninformed choices.

[FarPoint]

45. Good catch...

I didn't read thoroughly just skimmed....I'm with you on this point.

[treestar]

13. If the Senators had been Republicans

would they have been so concerned?

So what will they do? Replace them in the next election with Republicans?

[zeljko67]

17. More stupid responses..

Instead of worrying about who gets reelected..worry about what these shithead's did.

[treestar]

20. Bigger shitheads will do shitter things, no?

[TheKentuckian]

21. They can't be recalled, nor will they impeach themselves. All you can do is choose among the

approved candidates in the next election cycle, which may mean re-electing the same piece of shit as the other choices could be worse or deemed "unelectable" by the media and the establishment.

[Enrique]

27. that website is messed up

the articles are barely readable. And something about it makes me wonder if all those bylines are real people or are they one guy with multiple personalities.

Forgive me if I have judged them wrong. Tell us about salem-news.com, are they legitimate?

[suston96]

30. Instead of arguing recall how about discussing......

....whether this new law would violate other aspects and mandates of the US Constitution? Like the right to a speedy trial....(Amend. VI)?

"AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

[bhikkhu]

34. Which applies to criminal procescution of US citizens and legal residents

...whereas the NDAA refers to military detainment provided for by the 2001 war authorization, and excludes citizens and legal residents. Very much apples and oranges.

The constitution establishes civil law, and it also allows that "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." The Uniform Code of Military Justice is what applies in foreign wars, and applies to those involved in war against the US, and is in keeping with the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and standard international law.

[Fire Walk With Me]

40. A note about the NDAA:

The Constitution for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land, Article VI, paragraph 2. All statutes and laws enacted by Congress must be in harmony with the Constitution. Any statute or law enacted by Congress that is in contradiction or disharmony with the Constitution is null and void from the beginning. It creates no duties, creates no rights, imposes no obligation or duties upon any Citizen of the United States of America. It is as if it never existed. Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court decision, 1801

[Fire Walk With Me]

41. Sorry about that; I didn't see your thread until I added to mine.

Yours has more conversation, congrats!

[99Forever]

43. Whether or not..

.. this can actually be accomplished, it is the right thing to do.

[FarPoint]

47. I'll support keeping our

Democratic majority in the Senate thank you.

[99Forever]

48. What does that have to do with what I said?

Quite frankly, I don't support anyone from any party doing the wrong thing, regardless of what they call themselves.

I call it having ethics. To some of us, ethics still matter.