Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Setback for recall movement may be temporary

Opinion: Setback for recall movement may be temporary; Joshua Spivak; New Jersey.com

SUPPORTERS of the quick hook for federally elected officials were dealt a severe blow last week as the state Supreme Court ruled that Sen. Bob Menendez, as well as all other federal officials, are not subject to a recall vote.

The decision, overturning a lower court ruling allowing the recall to go forward, agrees with other court rulings that the recall cannot be utilized at the federal level. But recall proponents are not done yet. And there could be a chance, though most likely very small, that they could survive to fight another day.

The decision did leave some room for hope for the recall proponents. Two of the judges dissented, arguing that the recall should have been allowed to progress, as did the appellate court judges. While this doesn’t have any practical effect, it does mean that the proponents were able to convince at least two high-level judges of their argument.

Since they have promised to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, they have to hope to do better. The recall backers also have another case in the hopper, as recall proponents are also trying to recall North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, and had been threatening a recall of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

Recall backers are hoping that their side of history gets the best of a Supreme Court argument. The recall goes back to the beginning of the country – it made its first appearance in 1631 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A recall provision was also included in the Constitution’s predecessor document, the Articles of Confederation, though it apparently was never exercised. ...

Read the rest here.

Comment: The recall procedure was the missing piece the founders did not carry over from the Article of Confederation and put into the Constitution. If recall initiatives gain traction through out the country, could this mean we are closer to repealing the 17th or will it push it further away?

No comments: