Page history
March 27, 2017
November 3, 2016
March 22, 2010
A recall embodies the "best of the public" concept by allowing the public to exercise authority and control over its "expert" representatives.
+184
→Legal Objections: If you want the right to recall U.S. Senators, then you need to pass a constitutional amendment. (with response)
+592
Added a link to the editorial being mentioned
m+81
→Wall Street Journal Editorial Criticizing a Right to Recall: improved
-10
without a recall mechanism, there is no way for the people to substitute representation in place of an incapacitated official who refuses to resign
+28
there is no entitlement by a Senator to the seat that he occupies, as that seat belongs to the people and not to any individual, as explained by candidate Scott Brown concerning "Ted Kennedy's
+208
→Wall Street Journal Editorial Criticizing a Right to Recall
m→Wall Street Journal Editorial Criticizing a Right to Recall
m+2
→Wall Street Journal Editorial Criticizing a Right to Recall: typo
m-2
rebuttal to WSJ added
+1,555
→Legal Objections: alternate -> staggered election cycles
-2
→Legal Objections: 2. The U.S. Senate was designed to be insulated against frequent elections.
+510
no edit summary
m-1
recall elections ''enfranchises'' voters, rather than the disenfranchisement of voters that Justice Anthony Kennedy stressed in the 5-4 decision invalidating term limits
+179
Some argue (usually out of self-interest) that the Constitution does not expressly permit recall elections for congressmen.
+683
recall elections are preferable to the alternatives of a constitutional crisis, a Con Con, and widespread public discontent
+129