A group of Montanans has launched an effort to recall the state’s U.S. congressional delegation over recent votes on a controversial defense bill that explicitly authorized the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, including American citizens.
Montana — along with 8 other states — has language that extends its “right of recall” to members of its federal congressional delegation “on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses,” the group notes in a press release. The petition, drafted by Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes, then calls for recall elections for Senators Max S. Baucus (D) and Jonathan Tester (D), as well as Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) on charges that they have violated their oaths of office by not protecting and defending the United States Constitution in voting for the National Defense Authorization Act.
“These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It’s not about the left or right, it’s about our Bill of Rights,” Rhodes said. “Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization.”
When is an oath, if ever, taken seriously? Certainly not at the Presidential level. The oath of office has become so meaningless that it’s probably time to abandon it.
If there is anybody still into history …
George Washington’s farewell address had some great warnings on …
* the idea of political parties (parties looking after their interests, not citizens)
* negative effect of trade agreements (think NAFTA)
* and of the negative implications of government debt (unhinged spending)
The USA has grown to be the opposite of what it was intended to be in the sense that each state was intended to operate separately (think RomneyCare in Mass.) and take different approaches.
Our political system is rather hopelessly broken, but inertia will allow the country to be “ok” for a while longer.
While lobbyists and politicians loot it, racking up a huge mess of cronyism debt while selling away our rights to the highest bidding corporations …
Originally published in David Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796 under the title “The Address of General Washington To The People of The United States on his declining of the Presidency of the United States,” the letter was almost immediately reprinted in newspapers across the country and later in a pamphlet form.
The work was later named a “Farewell Address,” as it was Washington’s valedictory after 45 years of service to the new republic, first during the French and Indian War, through the American Revolution, and finally as the nation’s first president.
The letter was originally prepared in 1792 with the help of James Madison, as Washington prepared to retire following a single term in office. However, he set aside the letter and ran for a second term after the rancor between his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, convinced him that the growing divisions between the newly formed Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties, along with the current state of foreign affairs, would tear the country apart in the absence of his leadership.
Four years later, as his second term came to a close, Washington revisited the letter and with the help of Alexander Hamilton prepared a revision of the original draft to announce his intention to decline a third term in office. He also reflects on the emerging issues of the American political landscape in 1796, expresses his support for the government eight years after the adoption of the Constitution, defends his administration’s record, and gives valedictory advice to the American people.
The letter was written by Washington after years of exhaustion due to his advanced age, years of service to his country, the duties of the presidency, and increased attacks by his political opponents. It was published almost two months before the Electoral College cast their votes in the 1796 presidential election.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html
Good, violating your oath of office should be grounds for recall.
#24–bobbo: “A ‘supposed’ doctor”???
Alright, you’ve caught me out. My only medical training was the three week Langley Physician Impersonation Course but I did an extra week’s residency in OB-GYN.
“…seriously… how many times a year do you celebrate, or “could you” celebrate New Years?”
As often as I can. Sorry. Is that too flippant? Well, doe my Muslim friends we celebrate ras as sanah (sound familiar? Rosh Hashanah?) Since the Isalmic year is shorter by a week and a half than Western calendars, the date varies from November to February but is the first day of the first month: Muharram.
When I am with my Buddhist friends, We celebrate Songkran which starts on the first full moon in April. If you’ve never been to Thailand during Songkran, be warned. It’s called the Water Festival and is three days of being drenched by super soakers and buckets of dubious water – often iced. Still, it’s a fun time and since it occurs at just about the hottest time of the year, not unwelcome. (N.B. Some Buddhist cultures celebrate differently and in January/February.)
Most places, though, still celebrate the Western concept of the new year. In fact, I’m going to a big costume party this weekend with my little brown lady friend. (That’s a big party not big costumes and the lady is little not a little brown.)
I think you have a trademark.
Dubious Water – What does’t kill you only makes you stronger.
I may post under that moniker for a while! Thanks.
Though some may confuse me with a prostate problem…
No need to abandon the oath it only needs to be changed to:
I solemnly swear to cheat, steal, lie to the American people.
As an outsider to this, I would expect my politicians to do certain things, like…
1. Protect everyone from detention without trial.
2. Make sure that due process is followed by the police, military and secret services.
3. To protect the poor and needy.
4. To work on good relations with other countries and peoples wherever possible.
I suppose those are not felt to be acceptable to your constitution. This makes me feel safer that we do not have a written one then.
RE: Recall Petition of Congressman who voted for The National Defense Authorization ACT consider the following:
Is the Defense Authorization Act of 2012) More Threatening to Americans than Hitler’s (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS) That Suspended Provisions In the Reich Constitution That Protected German Citizens’ Civil liberties?
Compare: Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY DECREES stated time limits that German Citizens could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security; note that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s passed National Defense Authorization Act—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody, even for being a mere “Belligerent.” Some observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. U.S. Government can now arbitrarily deem anyone a “Belligerent.” Compare below The NAZI Government 1933 Decrees with Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
Under the passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could some Americans be (Retroactively) subject to Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider that most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they networked or associated have done in the past—perhaps illegal. Alarmingly both the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are broadly vague—what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting or aiding terrorists; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.” For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot Act.
History Repeats Itself: When other countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated; disappeared, and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be dead-meat under NDAA. It appears that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security—to order an American writer’s indefinite military or prison detention.
Is The Defense Authorization Act Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke provisions of passed NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) have in the past supported or aided terrorists; provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it may FREEZE IT!
It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention. Compare below: Hitler’s Laws that might appear mild when set side by side with the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act.
1933. ROBL. I 83.
GERMANY Preliminary Compilation of Selected Laws, Decrees, and Regulations:
DISCRIMINATORY LAWS:
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE
Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7
In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:
Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reich marks.
Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
Reich President
Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice