Court rules Tea Party can proceed with effort to recall Sen. Robert Menendez

[notesdev]

Source: nj.com

A state appellate panel today ruled New Jersey's secretary of state must accept a petition a citizens group filed to recall U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez.

The court stayed its decision to allow Menendez (D-N.J.) to appeal its ruling.

NJ Tea Parties United and the Sussex County Tea Party have said they want Menendez, (D-N.J.) recalled from office because he votes for too much government spending.

The case — which puts the state in the unusual position of arguing against its own law and calling part of its constitution unconstitutional — began last fall after then-Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells rejected the committee’s notice that it intended to begin a recall effort against Menendez. The removal process requires the secretary of state to approve such a notice before a recall committee can begin generating petitions.

Read more: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/court_says_nj_tea_party_cannot.html

---

Given that Menendez has been having severe trouble polling better than 37% approval, if this goes through you can scratch one more from the D column.

[Alexander]

1. I thought US Senators couldn't be recalled.

If this ends up setting precedent, maybe we can recall Joe Lieberman after all.

[notesdev]

3. That may well be possible

Lieberman's disapproval @67% appears to be the highest in the nation.

[ericinne]

2. Ok what am I missing here?

Recall him? For what reason? Being a Democrat?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. That was completely uncalled for.

Not knowing the backstory is hardly "stupid".

[ericinne]

7. Why are people like that?

I guess I'm sorry that I have a job to go to and don't have time to sit on the internet all day reading about everything, nor do I have time to watch the news. Didn't get to see the deleted comment, I am assuming I was being called stupid, thanks for defending me. I just asked what the deal was here. A simple link to the "allegations" for future reference would have sufficed over calling me stupid.

[SoapBox]

8. Yes...exactly that.

...and if the Crooked Five on the SCOTUS ever gets their dirty hands on something
like this...look out.

Rules only apply to us...not them.

[RoccoR5955]

6. They'll never get the 1.3 million signatures that they need

to recall the Senator. They need 25% of all registered voters in NJ to sign on. It'll never happen!
Those silly teabaggers are totally nuts! Not to mention, once they got the signatures, they would have to be verified.
The Senator's term is up in 2012, it would take at least that long for them to gather, then verify the signatures, let alone go through the court proceedings to accomplish this.

[Demeter]

9. If It Keeps Them Off the Streets and Away From Fox News

it's not a wasted effort.

[LynneSin]

15. Oh they'll get 1.3 million - but who knows if they are folks that exist.

Kinda like when Rick Santorum paid to have people help get the green party candidate on the ballot. Turned out that half of the votes weren't even registered PA Voters. Ironically the Santorum folks used a service that pays by the signature. Makes you wonder if they pay BEFORE or AFTER the results are tallied.

[No Elephants]

10. Why do Tea Partiers hate elections?

[RamboLiberal]

11. NJ court: Tea party bid to oust senator must wait

TRENTON, N.J. – A New Jersey appeals court has put on hold a conservative tea party group's effort to throw a Democratic U.S. senator out of office.

The three-judge panel Tuesday initially ordered the secretary of state to accept the group's petition seeking to recall Sen. Robert Menendez. But then court issued a stay because the case is likely to be appealed.

The group wants to begin collecting the 1.3 million voter signatures they need to get a recall on the ballot.

The court set aside the larger question of whether voters have a constitutional right to recall a federal lawmaker.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_on_re_us/us_nj_senator_recall

[SemperEadem]

12. isn't that what elections are for?

look at their blatant waste of the court's time. They are no different that what they're fighting--it's just that it's them who are wailing and moaning the loudest.

[CLANG]

13. ROFL!

"The court set aside the larger question of whether voters have a constitutional right to recall a federal lawmaker."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray:

[Tempest]

14. Are the teabaggers paying for the recall election?

Or are the millions it will take to hold the election be paid for by the dreaded government?

[LynneSin]

18. Seriously, not like Jersey coffers are overflowing with cash

:rofl:

I found that to be the same joke when they recalled Davis out in California. They complain about the budget sucking and taxes and yet it will take taxes to pay for this joke. MILLIONS of taxes dollars. Even if they manage to get 1.3 signature, there is a good chance many of those will be bad ones which means NJ tax dollars have to pay for this fallacy!

[LynneSin]

16. I say we start gathering 1.3million signatures to recall their Governor

I have a feeling Christie's popularity is going to tank soon when he starts allowing all the polluters to dump their garbage in NJ. No one is going to want to do a vacation in a state filled with garbage & pollution - and tourism is a big revenue in New Jersey.

[RoccoR5955]

17. Here, Here! n/t

[LynneSin]

19. I think the group that wants to recall someone needs to foot the bill to pay for all of this

Their senator is up for re-election in TWO YEARS!! Two years and yet these numbskulls will waste tax dollars (where there are none) to create this fiasco. It's going to cost tax dollars just to verify 1.3 MILLION signatures. Since that is 25% of the voting population of New Jersey - there is a strong chance they are going to get alot of fake signature. For every FAKE signature that is tax dollars that could be used to pave roads, pay for benefits, keep the government running, etc. etc. etc.

I could see if the guy had FIVE years until re-election....maybe. But two years? Just use your time to get a strong candidate running against the guy.

There should be a law that says for every fake signature verified that the organization attempting the recall has to pay for the time spent verifying it. AND if they don't hit the 1.3million then they have to foot the entire bill AND pay a penalty!

I can assure you it will make folks take things more serious about doing jokes that waste government tax dollars.

[suston96]

20. I don't think so.......

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache%3ADTZc-a95GJEJ%3Alugar.senate.gov%2Fservices%2Fpdf_crs%2FRecall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf+recalling+US+Senators&hl=en&gl=us

Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RL30016

Recall of Legislators and theRemoval of Members of Congress from Office

As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for no r
authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States. The recall of Members was considered during the
time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the States for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the Framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United States Congress exists under the Constitution.

Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other Supreme Court decisions, as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative decisions, rulings and opinions, indicate that: (1) the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides exclusively in each House of Congress as established in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the length and number of the terms of office for federal officials, established and agreed upon by the States in the Constitution creating that Federal Government, may not be unilaterally changed by an individual State, such as through the enactment of a recall provision or a term limitation for a United States Senator or Representative. Under Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, since individual States never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be“reserved” under the 10th Amendment.