• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Jersey high court rejects bid to recall senator

The Senate itself has the power to expell any member for any reason. Outside of expelling Confederate Senators from states that seceeded, it has only actually done it once, in about 1798 I think, with Blount of TN, who had conspired with the Brits it seems regarding western territories. Other Senators have chosen to resign before possible expulsion, such as Harrison of NJ with ABSCAM, and Packwood (OR I think) with some sexual harrassment stuff. So, they can be compelled out where there is enough evidence of wrong-doing.

But as for "no confidence", I think our Constitution is fine as written :)
 
Redress said:
Harshaw, from the source:



So we already have 4 states trying to do this, and more would follow, either now or later. Chaos might be an exaggeration, but big mess would not be.
Click to expand...
So now you admit your opinion is in fact based on partisan politics.

Perservation of the party is the way I see it. You think that it might grow legs and some unpopular democrats could find themselves out of a job.
 
Heavy Duty said:
So now you admit your opinion is in fact based on partisan politics.

Perservation of the party is the way I see it. You think that it might grow legs and some unpopular democrats could find themselves out of a job.
Click to expand...

What's "partisan" about wanting to avoid a mess?
 
apdst said:
Congress critters should be able to be recalled just like anyone else...moreso, even,
Click to expand...
But how do you prevent, say, a democrat - controlled state house and/or senate from using their position of control to support and advance a recall against one or more of their republican and/or third-party opponents?

Or the reverse?

What restrictions on a recall system would you put in place to prevent abuse?

-------------

On another note, what about the effect the constant threat of recall would have on elected officials?

I know it's popular to say "follow the will of the people", but our government was specifically designed (as I understand it) to insulate the governing process from popular opinion to an extent.

What is popular is not always the correct thing to do - and what is unpopular is sometimes the best thing to do.

What you are advocating would push us further away from a representative democracy governing system, and more towards a fully democratic governing system - wherein the popular opinion governs all - personally, I think we are far too close to that already, in some respects.
 
The Mark said:
What is popular is not always the correct thing to do - and what is unpopular is sometimes the best thing to do.
Click to expand...


Also what is unpopular one day could be popular the next day.
 
texmaster said:
I have to say I disagree. The people's power should not be limited to every election. 6 years is a long time to wait and watch the damage continue without any recourse by the people.

She accused the court of "judicial activism" and said the majority of the justices disregarded a 1995 amendment to the state constitution that established the right of recall for a sitting U.S. senator.

If she is right about the ruling and they did ignore it its very troubling.
Click to expand...

Her logic seems pretty poor, considering that the court found that the federal constitution did not permit this. NJ can pass whatever laws it wants, but that doesn't trump the federal constitution.

I'm not going to speculate as to the merits of the decision, but I agree with the policy. The Senate is supposed to be a check on the fickleness of the electorate. Allowing for recalls cuts directly against that.
 
Last edited:
Part of the reason we elect people is to make choices on our behalf which aren't popular.

Part of the reason Senators get a term of 6 years is that their duties include subjects for which they need to be further removed from popular whim -- treaties, judgeships, cabinet positions, and so on.

While recalling a Federal representative that pissed you off sounds really good in the heat of the moment, the fact is that if they have to watch for that at the same time that they're trying to do their job while pimping themselves out enough to get re-elected, they won't bother even trying to pretend to represent their constituents.

Hell, if I was a Congresscritter (Bob forbid) and my constituents were waiting for me to screw up so that they could gleefully fire me -- especially considering the bull**** that is involved in getting elected to begin with -- I'd bide my time, do nothing to draw attention to myself, then sell my vote for a high enough price that I don't care if I get recalled or not.

If I got the chance to sell it to someone whose interests directly contradicted those of my constituents, BONUS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom