People in Montana will recall those who voted in NDAA

[truedelphi]

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

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.


Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.
####

I think this effort on the part of Montana's citizens rocks.

[TheWraith]

1. Once again, you CANNOT recall federal elected officials.

It doesn't matter if state law says you can, federal law says you can't.

[limpyhobbler]

2. cool, what's the federal law that says you cannot recall them?

[msongs]

5. the US constitution says senators are elected for a 6 year term. no recall provision and vacancies

due to death or resignation etc are filled at the state level (temporary appointment or election)

[truedelphi]

9. In that case, the Senators should be friggin' impeached!

There is an entire section of legal code in the Constitution that allows for impeachmenmt.

Any elected offical can be impeached for failing to uphold the Constitution.

If the provisions regarding indefinite detention for American citizens are not grounds for impeachment, I do not know what woul dbe.

[Tx4obama]

13. There's NO indefinite detention by the military of American citizens living in The USA in that bill

and anyone that thinks that ALL the other Senators are going to vote to find fellow members of The Senate guilty of what ever the impeachment charges are due to 'voting on a bill' just ain't thinking straight. 83 Senators voted FOR the bill. You're not going to get a majority of Senators to vote 'guilty' on themselves!

[truedelphi]

20. I beg to disagree. And so does the ACLU.

To whit:

US citizens, may be now detained indefinitely, as long as they' re called "terrorists" first.

You can read the actual bill itself:
National Defense Authoriization Act
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf


Then once you finish reading the bill itself, make sure you realize the bill allows the Authorization for Use of Military Force
to remain intact, and be considered by the President and Congress, and in certain circumstances, the president and Congress can rely more heavily on the legal code more expounded upon inside Authorization of Military Force.

So basically when it comes into effect, the public will have to have a squabble over which "legislation" is more basic to our way of life - the Constitution and the inalienable rights that it claims we individuals possess, or the various new pieces of legislation, like the Authorization of Military Force, which have become part of the nation's legal code since Nine Eleven.

And a bit of the:
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

[limpyhobbler]

10. btw i just checked the constitution and it is silent on the question of recalls.

It says the states fill vacancies when seats come open due to resignations or "other reasons". What is meant by "other reasons"? Who should decide that?

[Tx4obama]

12. Here are a couple of things that come to mind regarding 'other reasons' in The Senate

1) When the Senate finds a Senator guilty at the conclusion of an impeachment trial and tosses him out. 2) Death of a Senator.

[limpyhobbler]

14. if the recall vote passes, the Senators will resign if they have any integrity.

[Tx4obama]

16. What do you mean 'if the recall vote passes' ?

States can not 'recall' U.S. Congress members.
There will NOT be a vote at the 'state' level.

[Ter]

3. Not sure Montana cares much about Federal law

I believe only Idaho is more anti-government than Montana.

[FarPoint]

19. Thank you...

I believe this thread is a re-run....so here we go again....

[sabrina 1]

4. I hope they succeed. We need people who take your oaths seriously.

So good to see that people are finally waking up to all this garbage and taking matters into their own hands.

After decades of placing trust in elected officials, we now see what they did with that trust and what has been going on in DC at our expense.

[Tx4obama]

6. Even IF they could be recalled (but they can NOT be) looking at the text posted in the OP

which says:
" ... on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses .."


NOTHING the Congress members did by voting for the NDAA bill falls into any of those categories listed.

Just because some folks do not 'agree' with or 'like ' a vote does NOT mean that Congress member did anything wrong - LOL


AND for Christ SAKES the NDAA does NOT allow for the indefinite 'military' detention of American citizens without charge or trial

The NDAA states that US Citizens living in THE USA are exempt and that NOTHING in Section 1021 affects 'current law'.

[truedelphi]

8. Five simple words you might have overlooked -

[h2][font color=red]

violation of oath of office

[/h2][/font color=red]

Once elected, you are sworn into office, and part of that swearing in involves words to the effect that you will uphold the Constitution of the United States.

[Tx4obama]

11. Section 1021 states that NOTHING in that section changes 'current law'

There is NOTHING new in the bill regarding the military being able to detain US citizens indefinitely - the bill specifically states that current law is not affected.

So, what in your opinion would constitute a 'violation of oath of office'.

There isn't any violation of oath of office.

Folks are all in a tizzy thinking the sky is going to fall when it is not.

[truedelphi]

23. My problem, and that of all those opposing this bill, is that the bill itself

Is a contradiction to the US Constitution.

Of course, now that we have assassinations of American citizens without trial or verdict, I guess the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper.

[Tx4obama]

7. And btw, Max Baucus isn't up for reelection until 2014.

List of U.S. Senators by 'class':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_Class#List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_Class

p.s. Senator Tester is up for reelection in 2012.
Both Senator Max Baucus and Senator Jon Tester are DEMOCRATS,
so I would ask folks to think carefully before cheering for the defeat of OUR DEMOCRATIC SENATORS - it is NOT a good thing to do.

[limpyhobbler]

15. would you ever vote for max baucus?

I had kind of a bad impression of him.

[Tx4obama]

17. If the choice was between Baucus (a democrat) and a republican challenger, then ....

yes, I would vote for Baucus since he is a DEMOCRAT

If the democrats of Montana want Baucus to be their Senator then that is up to them, not up to us.

[limpyhobbler]

18. didn't he side with the republicans to kill public option health care? not trying to be snarky

Just trying to remember why I didn't like him and I think that might have been the thing. I could be wrong.

[karynnj]

22. No he did not

He was chair of the Finance committee and the plan that he put forward did not have the public option in it because it was his view - which proved accurate - that he could not get 60 votes if the plan had a public option. There were members of the committee - Blanche Lincoln for one, who were Democrats who said they would vote against it.

The fact is his careful outline is pretty much where we ended up. His main accomplishment is the overall structure - that can and now likely will in some states - easily be able to include a public option - or even a state single payer option.

[truedelphi]

21. Fascism is fascism -

Regardless of the Big Bright letter imposed after someone's name!

Do you really think someone needs a short thick mustache and to speak German in order to destroy the civil liberties that were the bedrock of this nation?