Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Recall Battle Continues
As stated before, I'm not sure how I feel about recalling Congressman Walberg. However, it will be interesting to see how this turns out, and to watch Walberg's legal actions.
After Congressman Walberg's lawyer stated constitutional objections, Judge Margaret Noe ordered both James Carr (who brought the petition) and Eric Doster (Walberg's lawyer) to submit written briefs and return for oral arguments for August 6th. In the comments, Carr has posted the letter he sent to the Lenawee County clerk.
Dear Ms. Bluntschly,The short version: James Carr is following the laws of Michigan, as sanctioned by the state constitution, and within the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By choosing to delay and failing to rule on clarity within 15 days of the initial submission, the board of election commissioners may have effectively stated that the language was approved.
If there are any lawyers out there reading, I'd love to get a clarification on that point.
Either way, the underlying constitutional issue remains the same. James Carr is following Michigan law and cites the Tenth Amendment. Walberg's lawyer claims that those laws themselves are unconstitutional, citing a similar but unrelated Supreme Court ruling.
Now, it's important to keep in mind, if the recall petition were to go forward, there would still be the task of getting around 50,000 valid signatures, and then the even larger task of winning a majority vote in favor of recalling the congressman. It would take a monumental effort on the part of Carr to be successful.
And yet Tim Walberg seems to be frightened enough to send out a lawyer to fight it at this level.
In an e-mail to me, Carr commented:
I think it strange, first that a congressman would hire a very expensive lawfirm to challenge a legally sanction activity in the Michigan Constitution; second, the 24 page informational packet was thrust at the Chairman after the hearing had begun and a copy given to me. After reading the first few pages, it was evident that this lawyer either was unfamiliar with Michigan law or was just trying to obfuscate the issue.It'll be interesting to see where this goes.
This is all academic. There is not a snowballs chance in hell they can gather 50,000+ signatures to put it on a ballot.Post a Comment
The funniest thing would be Walberg's attorneys sitting in front of the supreme court, arguing against a voter initiative based in "states' rights".
I can see the quote from him now, "I was forced to fight against states' rights, but I still believe 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' But, while I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I still believe in that Constitution, I must pay lawyers to tear it apart to suit my goals. And long after this fight is over, I still believe in the 10th amendment, as long as I am not being recalled."
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008