| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Petition to Recall LA Senator Mary Landrieu (not legal) |
| 2010-01-08 |
| Taking back the Louisiana Purchase? Maybe this will catch on in other states (where it's legal) 12:38 CST Update from The New Star A New Iberia man's drive to recall U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu is useless since there's no provision in state or federal laws or constitutions that allows it, says Secretary of State Jay Dardenne. The blog Caught Him with a Corndog first broke the story and has a follow up to it: Per citizen filer Ruben T. LeBlanc, there will be an open meeting at the Freedom Forum on Thursday January 7th in Lafayette to discuss the recall of Mary "Gimme dem dollars" Landrieu. Some background on Ruben LeBlanc: He is a 51 year old construction and oil field worker with no political background who has decided "enough is enough". As of 14:21 December 29, 2009 Ruben LeBlanc filed a petition with the Secretary of the State of Lousiana, Jay Dardenne, to formally recall U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu. The citizens of Louisiana are granted the authority to perform a recall election by Section 26 of Article 10 of the Louisiana Constitution. "10. If the recall passes, the public officer is recalled and removed from office and the office is declared vacant when the election returns are certified to the Secretary of State. The vacancy is then filled as usual. The recalled official cannot be appointed to fill the vacancy."LA law requires at least 33% of the voters who were registered to vote at the time of the office holders election. What this translates to, in this attempt to remove Mary Landrieu, is the collection of 981,873 signatures of voters who were registered to vote on November 4th 2008. From moveonmary.org |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #8 John Adams did not foresee the capture of the national legislature by special interests, and the nearly-complete failure of the legislature to do its duty. We live neither in a republic or a democracy. Nobody's yet coined a word for the rule of anarcho-tyranny. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-01-08 20:42 |
| #7 I'm not so sure that provision doesn't apply to senators. IIRC, the election of congresscritters is controlled by state law with respect to filing deadlines, primaries, nominating petitions, and all that, so why wouldn't state law recall procedures also apply? |
| Posted by: Mike 2010-01-08 14:06 |
| #6 I don't favor recall of federal office holders, and particularly Senators. Our founders were wise men, many of them were well versed in government theory, Montesquieu in particular. By the time 1787 rolled around, they knew what they were doing, because they'd had ten years of practical experience. Shortly after the start of the revolution, the colonies, having dissolved ties with Britain, adopted new constitutions. A couple of states had fairly radical provisions. Pennsylvania adopted yearly election of state legislators. John Adams, quite radical himself, was skeptical of the arrangement because of his schooling. He was proved correct, and became well-acquainted with Pennsylvania's problems as the British moved into Philadelphia while congress fled to York. The turmoil in Pennsylvania that followed was not a boon to the patriot cause. The constant churning and the endless election year made it difficult for the legislature to proper administer proper discipline and control of the militia, and to support the Continental Army, which wintered at Valley Forge. The short election cycle made it impossible for the Pennsylvania legislature to enact unpopular but necessary policies. Ten years later at the constitutional convention, the founders made the lower house closest to people, with direct elections. But bi-annual elections, because annual elections get nothing done. Constant recall elections would be indistinguishable from annual elections. The founders also intended that the upper house be doubly insulated from the passions of the people, by having the Senate term last 3x that of the house, and by deciding against direct election. The 17th amendment has already cut a part of that, and recall would undermine it completely. I do not live in a democracy, nor would I care to. |
| Posted by: Pstanley 2010-01-08 14:04 |
| #5 AH9418, that's about as likely as an amendment requiring term limits for Congress critters. Since the first step in introducing an amendment is to get through Congress, neither will ever happen. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2010-01-08 13:43 |
| #4 I favor a repeal of the 17th amendment, though I favor a Constitutional amendment to allow recall of Senators & Congressmen, and clawing back their pensions if successful. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-01-08 13:24 |
| #3 I'm fairly sure it's not legal. State recall provisions don't apply to federal offices. There is no provision in the US constitution for it. I favor a repeal of the 17th amendment, though. |
| Posted by: Pstanley 2010-01-08 13:16 |
| #2 this is almost impossible |
| Posted by: lord garth 2010-01-08 12:30 |
| #1 Can they do it in time? |
| Posted by: Iblis 2010-01-08 12:19 |