Sen. Menendez Recall Killed by NJ Supreme Court
By: Devvy
December 13, 2010
As I predicted back in June, and fully explained in Footnote 1 below,
the New Jersey Supreme Court has killed the effort to recall U.S.
Senator Robert Menendez:
Nov. 18,
2010. Court kills Robert Menendez recall push
"The New Jersey Supreme Court struck down a tea party-led push to
recall Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez as unconstitutional Thursday.
"In a 4-2 decision, state Supreme Court justices said that the
Constitution forbids the recall of a sitting U.S. senator. Lawyers for
The Committee to Recall U.S. Senator Robert Menendez argued that New
Jersey law allows for such a recall, but justices determined that law
was pre-empted by federal statute."
No where in Art. 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Section
3 does it contain any language about recall.
The Tea Party Activists who brought the lawsuit are very unhappy and
indicate they will take it to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be shot
down there, too. Just like term limits, the U.S. Constitution would
have to be amended. I hope the sincere
(and desperate) plaintiffs do not file a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari. In my humble opinion, it will be a waste of time and money.
New Jersey became a state, December 18, 1787. The U.S. Constitution was
adopted on September 17, 1787. New Jersey ratified the U.S.
Constitution on December 18, 1787; 38 votes for and 0 against.
Delegates for the State of New Jersey knew when they ratified the U.S.
Constitution that it did not include recall for members of the newly
created U.S. Congress. The state legislature of
each state were the "You're fired!" authority, not voters.
Or, term limits. Of course, back then, how could any of the delegates
even imagine individuals (like deceased Sens. Robert Byrd, Teddy
Chapaquidick Kennedy and "censured" crook, Rep. Charlie Rangel) serving
in Congress would fight like dirty dogs to stay in office 15, 20, 30,
40 --51 years!
The sticky
legal issue
in the lawsuit was an amendment to the New Jersey State Constitution
back in 1993 allowing for recall for members of Congress. Fed up citizens got a
constitutional amendment passed and the first potential history making
challenge was shot down.
Which, of course, brings me back to one of my crusades for the past 15
years: The Seventeenth Amendment, which
was clearly not ratified by enough states despite what's posted on
inaccurate sites like Wikipedia.
One
of the Amicus Briefs filed stated:
"B. The Seventeenth Amendment Restored to the People of the Several
States their Inherent Power to Direct Election of the United States
Senators Representing Their Respective States."
And:
"Thus, the Seventeenth Amendment divested the legislatures of the
several States of the power to elect the members of the Senate, and
expressly vested that power in the people of the several States. The
immediate goal of the amendment was to make the senators “more ...
accountable to the people” (id.), and thus, more consistent with the
founding principle of the nation's charter that “governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed.” Declaration of Independence. Pursuant to this principle,
it is the people, not their governors, who determine if their “Form of
Government” is working “to effect their Safety and Happiness,” (id.)
and to make whatever alterations that the people see fit for the
government to achieve those ends."
Now, those attorneys are some
of
the best in this country because I know of them. However, let me
give you my humble opinion about some of the arguments presented:
First: There was never any inherent power to directly elect U.S.
Senators to represent the states. If that was the desire of the
delegates who represented the states at the Continental Congress, it
would have been inserted into the U.S. Constitution.
Second: According to the argument above, direct election was to make
senators more accountable to the people. That is NOT consistent with
what New Jersey signed on to when they ratified the U.S. Constitution
and became a state under one Union:
How
to restore states' sovereignty
"What's Harry Reid done for us lately?"
"That question was posed in one of the informal voter opinion sessions
in Nevada hosted by Fox News during the recent election cycle. The
constitutional response would be: U.S. senators are not supposed to
represent the citizens of the state.
"When the First Continental Congress was convened via a resolution of
the Congress of the Confederation, one of the first issues discussed on
May 29, 1787, was the balance of power for a newly created federal
government:
3. Resolved, that the National Legislature ought to
consist of two branches.
4. Resolved, that the member of the first branch of
the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the
several States every _____ for the term of _____; to be of the age of
____years at least. ...
5. Resolved, that the members of the second branch
of the National Legislature ought to be elected by those of the first,
out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual
Legislatures, to be of the age of ____ years at least. ...
"James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers No. 45: "The Senate will be elected absolutely and
exclusively by the State legislatures."
John Jay, co-author of The Federal Papers is quoted: "Jay then informed
Governor Clinton that, unlike the Senate, where the two-thirds rule was
in force for treaties and impeachment, the lower house had nothing to
do with treaties; it represented the people whereas the Senate represented the states –
for the Federalists always a significant distinction."
"The framers of the Constitution wisely understood the absolute
necessity of ensuring we the people would have the right to vote for
our representative in Congress, and at the same time because they all
jealously guarded freedom and liberty, the states must also have equal
representation. We the people would have the ability to remove via the
ballot box miscreants and scoundrels, while the state legislatures
could recall their U.S. senators who acted against the best interests
of their states.
"The Senate was supposed to be a sort of check and balance, but that
disappeared when U.S. senators began to be voted into office by special
interests and mobs demanding more from the people's treasury. The
absolute right of the states to equal representation was wiped out when
the 17th Amendment was declared ratified April 8, 1913."
In order to protect the rights of the states, the states that ratified
the U.S. Constitution all agreed that two senators would be appointed
by their state legislators.
I
continue to get email from many citizens in several states who are
trying to get their state legislators to take up this issue: the non
ratification of that amendment and that "no State, without its Consent, shall
be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate".
The challenge must come from the states because it will never happen
via a constitutional amendment which takes years. It will never come
from the Outlaw Congress as they have become nothing more than a voter
sanctioned criminal syndicate. That decision by the New Jersey Supreme
Court was correct even though I wish it could be different. The Tenth
Amendment argument didn't fly with them and I don't believe it would
with the U.S. Supreme Court either. Should a state decide to sue the
national government (after a resolution by the state legislature and
forwarded to their Attorney General, I think is the process), it would
be an original lawsuit and goes straight to the U.S. Supreme Court:
Art
III, Sec. 2:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all
cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to
all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to
which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two
or more states;--between a state and citizens of another
state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the
same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between
a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or
subjects.
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before
mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as
to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as
the Congress shall make."
Clause 2 is the ringer: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be
party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction." That
sentence goes to Clause 1 and parties as to who shall - the operative
word being shall - go under the Supreme Court as an original
jurisdiction. "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme
Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with
such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
I know I sound like a broken record, but
if U.S. Senators were still appointed by the states, I firmly believe
S.510 - the Food Safety and Modernization Act as well as so many other
unconstitutional bills shoving "federal" authority down the throats of
the states would never make it out of a committee. Unqualified Justices
to the U.S. Supreme Court like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayer would
never get confirmed.
The top issue with Americans, and justifiably so, is the issue of jobs.
There can be no recovery without jobs and "outsourcing" has killed our
manufacturing, industrial and manufacturing sectors. Few Americans
truly understand the ramifications of the trade deficit and why the
treaties below not only have eroded U.S. Sovereignty, but killed
millions and millions of American jobs. The current U.S. Senate will do
nothing to get us out of those treaties and I can tell you sure as I'm
typing this column, the newly minted Speaker of the House, John
Boehner, will make sure those 5+ millions jobs never come back to
America:
Boehner is a shrewd career politician and SHAME on the people in his
district for voting him back into office. His votes over the years has
killed so many jobs in the State of Ohio.
Boehner voted for NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT/WTO. Voted YES on promoting free
trade with Peru. A vote against American workers. A vote to seriously
hand over U.S. Sovereignty under those unconstitutional treaties.
Voted YES on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. A vote
against American workers.
Voted YES on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. A vote
against American workers.
Voted YES on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. A vote
against American workers.
Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO (2000). A vote against American
workers.
Voted Yes on the illegal TARP bail outs for the banking cartel. His
vote was a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Like Pelosi, Boehner will be able to wield tremendous power. He has
lost one power play (Ron Paul now the Chairman of the House Domestic
Monetary Policies Subcommittee), but don't think for a minute Boehner
will abandon his anti-American stand on jobs or protecting the bankers.
H.R. 4759 will die December 31, 2010. That bill was to withdraw the
U.S. from the unconstitutional NAFTA Treaty. It had 30 Democrat
sponsors and one Republican, Ron Paul. Doesn't that tell you in giant
letters the Republicans have NO intention of bringing American jobs
home? The Republicans had control of Congress from January 1995 -
January 2007; eight years with a Republican president. They did NOTHING
to bring home American jobs. Instead, buzzards like John Boehner
continue to vote for treaties destroying more American jobs.
The same applies to the approximately
11.5 MILLION jobs being held by criminals aka illegal aliens. The Republicans could easily have put the military on the border and
built a fence lickety split for just cost of materials. The Army Corps
of Engineers and our military are already on the payroll, so there
would be no gazillions of dollars for contractors. Our military would
also be guarding the heavily invaded border areas while the fence was
being built. Instead, the Republicans sat on their well padded
backsides and did nothing while thousands and thousands of Americans
have been slaughtered by illegals. Thousands of tons of damn drugs
smuggled across the border and billions spent by states of the Union to
support criminals (free medical, education, stealing American jobs and
incarceration) who smuggled themselves across the border. Thank you,
Republicans and those Americans who reelected most of them last month.
Many career political who*res who voted to destroy American sovereignty
and jobs are still in the U.S. Senate: McCain, Libermann, McConnell,
Lugar, Kerry, Hatch, Grassley, Baucus, Leahy and others. No jobs for
Americans; dead factories, college graduates working at minimum wage --
if they can even get one; we know tens of thousands of college
graduates still have not entered the work force. Worthless degrees;
massive student loans.
Thomas DiLorenzo wrote a column back in March on the Seventeenth
Amendment:
The
Lunatic Left Is Getting Desperate
"The Huffington Post recently (March 18) sunk to a new low by
publishing an attack on “Ron Paul and the Tea Parties: States' Rights
and the 17th Amendment” by one Leonard Zeskind, a “former” Stalinist
rabble-rouser. According to Laird Wilcox, author of The Watchdogs, a
book about contemporary political movements, Zeskind began his
communistic career of agitprop in the '70s as a “front man” for the
“Sojourner Truth Organization” whose stated objective was “to motivate
the working classes to make a revolution.” The Organization quoted its
role model, Josef Stalin, who insisted on the need for “iron
discipline” in agitating for a communist revolution in America.
"According to Wilcox, Zeskind has written favorably about “the value of
a grass roots school of communism” that would teach people how to
“destroy the marketplace.” He wrote this in a journal called “Urgent
Tasks,” a phrase popularized by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The Kansas City
City Magazine once called Zeskind “elusive, paranoid, near hysterical.”
His forte, according to the Wilcox Collection, appears to be “ritual
defamation” of his perceived political opponents, i.e., “to call people
names in the hope of defaming, discrediting, stigmatizing or
neutralizing them...
"Why are the Huffingtonians upset about mere talk of repealing the
Seventeenth Amendment? Because the Amendment, which mandated the
popular election of U.S. Senators (as opposed to the original system of
appointment by state legislators) allows a small cabal of wealthy and
influential people to dominate governmental decision-making. Getting
elected to the U.S. Senate requires the raising of millions of dollars
for television advertising and other elements of modern campaigning, so
that senators have long been in the pockets of their major donors from
all over the country, and the world, as opposed to the folks back home.
Zeskind says this system is “democratic,” but in reality it is the
opposite. Reverting back to the original system that was created by the
founders would allow the “riffraff” known as the citizens of the
sovereign states to exert more influence over their own government.
Historically, this system was an important brake on the growth of the
central government. This is why the Lunatic Left is increasingly
hysterical over the talk about repealing the Seventeenth Amendment as
well as nullification, and especially secession."
You can't repeal an amendment that was never ratified and it will not
come from the Outlaw Congress as I said above. While the states rights
movement and nullification is growing, some things cannot be "fixed"
except by direct challenges, in this case, the non ratification of the
Seventeenth Amendment. It is in the best interests of the states to
move forward with a well thought out challenge because time is growing
short. Many states are only in session from January 2011 through April
or May. Here in Texas, our legislatures goes into session in January,
goes out in 140 days and doesn't come back until January 2013.
Isn't it time the state houses moved for real sovereignty? With 500 new
conservative Republicans elected to the 50 state legislatures, isn't
there one who will take this all the way? The states are going bankrupt
because of unemployment, pensions and lack of tax revenues. Do we want
to bring home 5+ million jobs or allow 100 unlawfully seated U.S.
Senators continue to destroy our most important job sectors? Please
make this an issue with your state representative and senator. If we
the people really want to restore our nation to a producing, prosperous
country, we will have to flood our state houses with letters (not
email). Are we up to it?
Footnote:
[1] Recall
of US Senator Robert Menendez
Links:
Lawmaker
wants Legislature to meet every other year
You can buy Made in
the USA -- Please support American workers
Stop supporting communism -- Stop buying Made in China
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies distributed. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.
Visit Devvy's website at: https://devvy.com. You may also sign up for her free email alerts.
Copyright © 2010 Devvy Kidd
All rights reserved.