Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators

Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 2:59:42 AM)
Two Colorado Democrats who provided crucial support for a slate of tough new gun-control laws were voted out of office on Tuesday ~New York Times The result should not surprise. The will of the people was clear... According to a Quinnipiac University poll last month, voters in the state opposed the gun laws by a margin of 54%-40%. Democrats were supportive of the measures, 78%-16%, while Republicans more strongly opposed them, 89% to 7%. More importantly for electoral purposes, a majority of independent voters opposed the laws, 56%-39%. ~CNN Nevertheless, big buckets of cash from anti-gun groups poured into Colorado in an attempt to defeat them... The recall battle drew more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions. But the vast majority of the funds - nearly $3 million - came from opponents of the recall drive who support stricter gun control, figures from the secretary of state's office showed. ~Reuters But no cigar this time. The voters talked, and money walked. K.

tazzygirl -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 6:24:42 AM)
quote: A poll conducted last month showed Colorado residents in general opposed the recall efforts, with 60 percent saying that when voters disagree with a legislator they should wait for re-election rather than mount a recall. Could be an interesting election cycle coming through there next year.

Kirata -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 5:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: A poll conducted last month showed Colorado residents in general opposed the recall efforts, with 60 percent saying that when voters disagree with a legislator they should wait for re-election rather than mount a recall. Could be an interesting election cycle coming through there next year. Much as the recall was centered on the gun issue in the popular press, that doesn't seem to be what actually provoked it. It would be accurate to say that the recall campaign was driven by opposition to the anti-gun bills which Morse and Giron pushed through the legislature. But this is only the first part of the story. As it turns out, Morse and Giron sealed their fates on March 4, the day that the anti-gun bills were heard in Senate committees. At Morse’s instruction, only 90 minutes of testimony per side were allowed on each of the gun bills. As a result, hundreds of Colorado citizens were prevented from testifying even briefly. Many of them had driven hours to come to the Capitol, traveling from all over the state. That same day, 30 Sheriffs came to testify. They too were shut out, with only a single Sheriff allowed to testify on any given bill. So while one Sheriff testified, others stood up with him in support. Admirably, Morse had urged his Committee Chairs to be polite and courteous to all witnesses, and they were. But President Morse did not follow the standard practice of the Colorado legislature, by which any citizen who wishes to testify is allowed to be heard, at least briefly. The patient endurance of Colorado legislative committees which have heard hour upon hour of testimony on bills about gay rights, motorcycle helmets, and other social controversies is a tribute to our republican form of government. When Morse shut that down, and Chairperson Giron went along, they crossed the double-red line of Colorado government. Had the seven gun control bills (one of which I testified in favor) been heard on March 4-6, instead of being rammed through committees on March 4, the recall might never have happened. It’s one thing to lose; it’s another to thing to lose when you didn’t even have the opportunity to present your reasoning. While the gun control bills were before the Senate in March, President Morse urged his caucus to stop reading emails, to stop reading letters from constituents, to stop listening to voicemails, to vote for the gun bills and ignore the constituents. Giron, presciently following this strategy, had allowed citizens to raise Second Amendment concerns at a single town hall meeting, and thereafter refused to discuss the issue at public fora... When Morse and Giron squelched the testimony of law-abiding citizens and of law-enforcing Sheriffs, they grossly abused their constitutional office of being law-makers. And so, for abuse of office, John Morse and Angela Giron have been recalled from office by the People of Colorado, to be replaced by legislators who will listen before the vote. Source K.

JeffBC -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 8:04:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Two Colorado Democrats who provided crucial support for a slate of tough new gun-control laws were voted out of office on Tuesday ~New York Times The result should not surprise. The will of the people was clear... I just wish this happened more often. I wish we held our elected representatives accountable and when they failed to represent... well... this. With a split of 90/10 on Syria I don't fully understand why there isn't a recall/impeach/whatever for Obama.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 8:59:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Two Colorado Democrats who provided crucial support for a slate of tough new gun-control laws were voted out of office on Tuesday ~New York Times The result should not surprise. The will of the people was clear... I just wish this happened more often. I wish we held our elected representatives accountable and when they failed to represent... well... this. With a split of 90/10 on Syria I don't fully understand why there isn't a recall/impeach/whatever for Obama. I'm not sure not listening to the American people is, necessarily, an impeachable offense. I don't know if there is any other acceptable way to remove a President from office outside of impeachment.

popeye1250 -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 9:07:27 PM)
That's a good thing. If elected public officials aren't going to listen to the people who put them in office they need to go. They're there to do our bidding not to try to tell us what to do! It should be made abundantly clear to any candidate before they take the oath that they are the "hired help" not the Management, The People are the Management.

TheHeretic -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 9:13:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm not sure not listening to the American people is, necessarily, an impeachable offense. I don't know if there is any other acceptable way to remove a President from office outside of impeachment. Nope. That's the mechanism to start it, followed by a trial in the Senate. Of course, if we keep going the way we are now, a Congress willing and able to do that could be along in a bit over a year.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 9:17:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm not sure not listening to the American people is, necessarily, an impeachable offense. I don't know if there is any other acceptable way to remove a President from office outside of impeachment. Nope. That's the mechanism to start it, followed by a trial in the Senate. Of course, if we keep going the way we are now, a Congress willing and able to do that could be along in a bit over a year. I was not correct in stating that impeachment can oust a President. I meant the process that is followed, which includes the Senate trial. My mistake. However, that still doesn't mean that not listening to the American people is, necessarily, an impeachable offense. Certainly there are instances where it could be, but the offense would be drive the impeachable part, not whether or not the President listened to the will of the people.

BamaD -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 9:22:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Two Colorado Democrats who provided crucial support for a slate of tough new gun-control laws were voted out of office on Tuesday ~New York Times The result should not surprise. The will of the people was clear... I just wish this happened more often. I wish we held our elected representatives accountable and when they failed to represent... well... this. With a split of 90/10 on Syria I don't fully understand why there isn't a recall/impeach/whatever for Obama. There is no Federal recall and being unresponsive to the voters is not an impeachable offense.

TheHeretic -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 9:30:45 PM)
If the Congressional will is there, and the will of the people is firmly behind it, then the appropriate offense(s) can be found. Just as a for instance, the imprisonment of guy who made that Mohammed movie the middle eastern critics didn't like is still in the CA prison system for his "parole violation," and a pastor in Florida (an asshat, granted) was hauled off to jail today for traffic violations. Put a real inquiry into how those things came to happen (or any number of other little scandals) and we'll have something to fill in the blanks in the Articles.

TheHeretic -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 9:33:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I was not correct in stating that impeachment can oust a President. I meant the process that is followed, which includes the Senate trial. My mistake. No criticism intended. I was just fleshing it out for some of our highly energetic posters who never had Schoolhouse Rock, much less American 5th grade civics.

JeffBC -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/11/2013 9:45:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD There is no Federal recall and being unresponsive to the voters is not an impeachable offense. chuckles well that explains my confusion... and is clearly something that needs to be fixed. I'm a firm believer on needing a tight leash on those we grant power to.

Phydeaux -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/12/2013 12:40:31 PM)
It is ironic, that I, who believe that the President has lied repeatedly in office, who caused the death of people working for the US government through his inaction, who violated the privacy rights of the people would actually probably argue against an impeachment. Such a proceeding, motivated by the syrian situation, is more or less just legal harassment. It is also a waste of time, as there is no way a trial in the senate results in conviction, with a Democrat majority.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/12/2013 12:41:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux It is ironic, that I, who believe that the President has lied repeatedly in office, who caused the death of people working for the US government through his inaction, who violated the privacy rights of the people would actually probably argue against an impeachment. Such a proceeding, motivated by the syrian situation, is more or less just legal harassment. It is also a waste of time, as there is no way a trial in the senate results in conviction, with a Democrat majority. Depending on what happens with Syria, I don't believe there are even grounds to pass articles of impeachment, let alone pass them and try them.

mnottertail -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/12/2013 12:43:02 PM)
regardless of what happens in syria, no grounds for impeachment.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/12/2013 12:49:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail regardless of what happens in syria, no grounds for impeachment. You haven't ever answered the question (with citations) of where he gets his authority to act unilaterally in Syria without Congress's assent. Without Congress or the UN's authorization, there is no authority for him to inject our military into hostilities. Care to do so now?

mnottertail -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/12/2013 1:06:18 PM)
I answered it long long ago. it has not changed. It does not involve colorado, however. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; (and so forth, US Constitution). ******************** In the relatively few occasions where it has addressed foreign affairs, the Supreme Court has agreed with the executive branch's consistent interpretation. Conducting foreign affairs and protecting the national security are, as the Supreme Court has observed, "'central' Presidential domains." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 n.19 (1982). The President's constitutional primacy flows from both his unique position in the constitutional structure, and from the specific grants of authority in Article II that make the President both the Chief Executive of the Nation and the Commander in Chief. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749-50 (1982). Due to the President's constitutionally superior position, the Supreme Court has consistently "recognized 'the generally accepted view that foreign policy [is] the province and responsibility of the Executive.'" Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988) (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. at 293-94). "The Founders in their wisdom made [the President] not only the Commander-in-Chief but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs," possessing "vast powers in relation to the outside world." Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 173 (1948). This foreign affairs power is exclusive: it is "the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations - a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). Conducting military hostilities is a central tool for the exercise of the President's plenary control over the conduct of foreign policy. There can be no doubt that the use of force protects the Nation's security and helps it achieve its foreign policy goals. Construing the Constitution to grant such power to another branch could prevent the President from exercising his core constitutional responsibilities in foreign affairs. Even in the cases in which the Supreme Court has limited executive authority, it has also emphasized that we should not construe legislative prerogatives to prevent the executive branch "from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions." Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 443 (1977). excerpt from the W Justice department here: http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm And of course the AUMF. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commander_in_chief_powers So, in a nutshell, there it is.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/12/2013 2:50:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I answered it long long ago. it has not changed. It does not involve colorado, however. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; (and so forth, US Constitution). ******************** In the relatively few occasions where it has addressed foreign affairs, the Supreme Court has agreed with the executive branch's consistent interpretation. Conducting foreign affairs and protecting the national security are, as the Supreme Court has observed, "'central' Presidential domains." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 n.19 (1982). The President's constitutional primacy flows from both his unique position in the constitutional structure, and from the specific grants of authority in Article II that make the President both the Chief Executive of the Nation and the Commander in Chief. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749-50 (1982). Due to the President's constitutionally superior position, the Supreme Court has consistently "recognized 'the generally accepted view that foreign policy [is] the province and responsibility of the Executive.'" Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988) (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. at 293-94). "The Founders in their wisdom made [the President] not only the Commander-in-Chief but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs," possessing "vast powers in relation to the outside world." Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 173 (1948). This foreign affairs power is exclusive: it is "the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations - a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). Conducting military hostilities is a central tool for the exercise of the President's plenary control over the conduct of foreign policy. There can be no doubt that the use of force protects the Nation's security and helps it achieve its foreign policy goals. Construing the Constitution to grant such power to another branch could prevent the President from exercising his core constitutional responsibilities in foreign affairs. Even in the cases in which the Supreme Court has limited executive authority, it has also emphasized that we should not construe legislative prerogatives to prevent the executive branch "from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions." Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 443 (1977). excerpt from the W Justice department here: http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm And of course the AUMF. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commander_in_chief_powers So, in a nutshell, there it is. quote: THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Nothing in that first part, since Syria had nothing to do with the attacks and al Qaeda is actually involved in fighting on the rebel's side. Nothing in the second part, either, since, again, Syria had nothing to do with the attacks, nor have they been suspected of harboring or supporting those that did (again, al Qaeda is fighting against the Syrian government). The third part, however, is where things get dicey. Syria is considered a terrorist sponsor, by the State Dept., right? However, we aren't actually attacking any terror organization, unless you consider the Assad regime a terror organization, which would then mean we need to effect a major change in their governance, which isn't going to happen, according to the President. That's the gray AUMF authority. On to the War Powers Act... quote: It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. Here we have the specification that both Congress and the President (not an "or" statement) have judgment over whether troops are introduced into hostilities or expected hostilities. Both. Not just the President. Further... quote: (c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. 1. There is no DoW. 2. There is no specific statutory authorization (the general AUMF isn't specific) 3. There is no national emergency. The President of the United States is relying on a very gray authority, which some would very much challenge. As has been shown, both the current President and the current Vice President have both stated that W didn't have the authority to attack Iran. Either they are partisan hack liars, or that is the truth. However, if W didn't have the authority to unilaterally attack Iran, Obama doesn't have the authority to unilaterally attack Syria. Iran, too, is listed as a state sponsor of terror. So, either Obama and Biden were lying then, or Obama is lying now. Which is it?

DomKen -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/12/2013 4:11:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail regardless of what happens in syria, no grounds for impeachment. You haven't ever answered the question (with citations) of where he gets his authority to act unilaterally in Syria without Congress's assent. Without Congress or the UN's authorization, there is no authority for him to inject our military into hostilities. Care to do so now? US Constitution article 2 section 2 quote: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, That's been the basis of sending troops into any number of situations over the centuries. Congress has but two roles as regards the military. One is to declare war which is undefined and means exactly nothing and the budgetary power which could be used to force a military campaign to end by not allowing any money to be spent on it.

DomKen -> RE: Colorado Voters Recall Two Democrat Senators (9/12/2013 4:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Nothing in that first part, since Syria had nothing to do with the attacks and al Qaeda is actually involved in fighting on the rebel's side. Nothing in the second part, either, since, again, Syria had nothing to do with the attacks, nor have they been suspected of harboring or supporting those that did (again, al Qaeda is fighting against the Syrian government). The third part, however, is where things get dicey. Syria is considered a terrorist sponsor, by the State Dept., right? However, we aren't actually attacking any terror organization, unless you consider the Assad regime a terror organization, which would then mean we need to effect a major change in their governance, which isn't going to happen, according to the President. That's the gray AUMF authority. Actually since Syria does support and harbor Hezbolla and other terrorist organizations they can be attacked under the AUMF. quote: On to the War Powers Act... The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, even a trivial google seacrh will turn up many legal scholars that say so. Every time it has been ignored Congress has not gone to court because they know the courts will throw it out.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625