No take-backsies

Teabaggers want to recall Democratic U.S. Senators to force them from office. This is patently unconstitutional. The 17th Amendment (which enacted direct popular election of Senators) says in part:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Not "six years, as long as the loonies don't want to change the rules in mid-term". Not "six years ... or whatever, dude". Not "six years for conservatives but less for anyone with even a whiff of stinky liberalism".

Six years.

Article I, section 5 of the Constitution adds:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ....

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Nope, still no provision for a bunch of ignoramuses throwing a Senator out early.

Even though a state appeals court in New Jersey has pretended that there's some legal doubt on this issue about the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over the New Jersey Constitution, there is no such doubt.

This effort is not really about recalling Robert Menendez. It's about exacting the price from Menendez of suffering incessant attacks. At the end, he'll win, but meanwhile his attention and efforts will be diverted away from governing, away from living better, away from preparing to run for re-election. He'll get tired, his contributors will get tired at the additional burden of contributing to his legal defense fund, and being a legislator will seem less and less like a good idea.

This was exactly the strategy of attack agains Bill Clinton when he was President.

Oh, I said there was no doubt that recalling a Senator is unconstitutional, but there is in fact one doubt. The U.S. Supreme Court has proven its willingness to intervene in politics on the side of Republicans (if you're Rip Van Winkle, Bush v. Gore). There's no guarantee that this court would have any more conscience than that court did in 2000.

Then, it could be us liberals carrying torches and pitchforks, as we should have nine years ago.

Bush v. Souter

While David Souter could only be regarded as liberal in an age when the Washington consensus has been that the center lies somewhere far to the right of Richard Nixon, anyone who despises Bush v. Gore is a friend of mine:

"He was very aggrieved by December 12, 2000," said Ralph Neas, former director of the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way. "He believed it was the ultimate politicization of the Supreme Court."

Calvinball gets a new name

Colemanball:

As Coleman, a Republican, listened from his lawyers' table, Friedberg said that a strict standard requiring that each element of absentee voting be met -- being properly registered, signing both the envelope and application, having it witnessed by a registered voter, and more -- "doesn't exist anywhere in Anglo-American jurisprudence."

Read that again. Coleman's lawyer is explicitly arguing that the four corners of the statute don't exist in jurisprudence. To make sense, that means he is asking the court to disregard the law and make up new law.

The irony is that Bushists accused Democrats of this in 2000, when in fact Democrats wanted interpretation and standards for intent of the voter, which was already law. Republican Coleman's lawyers want to throw out the law and rewrite it for their convenience.

And their wingnut supporters will claim that Democrats are stealing this election. They really can't tell the difference between truth and a lie.

Former U.S. Constitution - Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution of the United States had a good run. It lasted from 1789 to the first decade of the 21st century, more than twenty-five times as long as the Articles of Confederation that it repealed and superseded. Despite the Constitution's original sin in slavery, a sin that led via the Electoral College to its death despite America's bloody Civil War of expiation, the Constitution was a durable foundation. It deserved better treatment of its aspiration to just and effective government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

It's impossible to put an exact date on its demise, since it was not openly repealed or superseded. Instead, it was simply ignored by the Executive, with the active connivance of the Judiciary and the meek acquiescence of the Legislative branch.

The first step on the path that overturned the Constitution, however, can be dated to Dec. 12, 2001. On that infamous date, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore accepted the captious and torturous logic of the Bush attorneys and ruled against all proportion that equal protection of voters required stopping the vote count in Florida.

Now, in another attempt to lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen, I'm setting for myself a project: to show the tatters of the old Constitution paragraph by paragraph.

When we get to writing a new Constitution, we need to remember these Bushist days. We also need to remember the flaws of the "Great" Compromise that our forebears mistakenly left in place after the Civil War. We won't get a perfect result. Given the deep and rigid divisions in America, we probably won't get a result as durable as the just abrogated Constitution, but we need to make every effort to avoid obvious errors such as allowing a candidate who loses the popular vote to nonetheless become President.

Where were you in 2000?

Setting: Interrogation room in the Seattle Police Headquarters.

"So, Huckabee, what were you doing on the night of December 12, 2000?"

"Detective, I told you, it was nearly eight years ago. How could I possibly remember that? What has that got to do with my police report?"

"Think back. It was an important day."

"I was probably Christmas shopping at the local Bible-believing book store. My opponent is trying to steal my caucus right out from under your nose."

"Any witnesses to this alibi? Or had they all been raptured?"

"I don't know about witnesses, Detective, but I expect to be taken when the Rapture comes down upon us. But what about the caucuses?"

"You ever heard of adverse possession, Reverend?"

"What kind of possession? I've never taken drugs in my life."

"Sure. You're not just another Bible-banger like Ted Haggard?"

"No, sir, just a good Christian come to report an election theft."

"What I'm saying to you, Huck - that your real name? - is that the Republicans established adverse possession over election returns, and the Supreme Court approved it in 2000."

"December 12th?"

"You got it buddy."

"So there's nothing you can do for me?"

"I could, but I don't like you, see? Stirring up trouble. I'm gonna send your fingerprints to Washington, and I'll bet we find a match. I got my eye on you, bub."