...by the states, any vote to relieve a U.S. representative or senator would just be a statement by the people. It wouldn't have any force of law as it is, without state legislation.
If everything goes as I'm hoping, it wouldn't just be a town hall meeting of Ron Paul supporters. It would be many, many meetings of local voters all over the district who had been informed of the meetings and came to the their meeting to have a voice, even if that was all it was.
In my state, during the 2012 primaries, my state changed from primary to caucus, but something happened with the scheduling, so the primary was still held, only it was called a "beauty contest". Those of us who voted in that primary knew that our votes at the primary meant nothing, but we went to vote anyway, and the results were announced, even though they meant nothing.
I think people are starving for some way to be heard right now, because our representatives aren't listening to us. You can even watch the MSM and see that. People are not happy at all with what they are learning about their government. I think that even if it is nothing more than a statement of protest of the government's behavior, they will show up at the town hall meetings to cast their votes.
I'm hoping that if enough people show up to vote, the states will take notice and pass the legislation for us. I tried to give the states plenty of incentives to pass it, with taking charge of our U.S. representatives and senators from their election/re-election with the requirement for the state oath and imposing term limits, to resolving their state sovereignty, to ultimately repealing the 17th Amendment and adding an amendment to invoke state sovereignty as a mandate of the Constitution. There are some good things for the states if they support this project.
As far as the legality and morality of it, the Constitution is supposed to restrain the federal government and stay within its defined powers. If it's not in the Constitution, and doesn't violate the Constitution, then it's up to the states and the people. That's our right guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.
Morality is a huge deal for this project - Ron Paul has told us that the Constitution won't work without a moral people, and I believe that. There is a moral code for the project, or there wouldn't be a project. I agree with you that it would be immoral to have a very small group to have the power to relieve an elected representative. But that's not what's going on. Every constituent has to be provided the opportunity to vote, and that means lots of prior public notice and lots of town hall meetings.
From the top, it looks big and complicated. It takes weeks for a U.S. representative to be reviewed, and months for a senator. From the ground, it's very simple:
- Make a small group of 7-10 people
- learn your area's voting statistics
- decide how many town hall meetings your group can handle
- make friends with local law enforcement
- find a suitable location
- buy and/or gather your supplies and equipment for the meeting(s)
- spread the word, coordinate with other groups
- build your contact roster
- wait and stay ready
- when the time comes, conduct a town hall meeting, or a few
When you have enough groups in your U.S. district to cover the voting population (I'm estimating 1-5 town hall meetings per county in rural areas, maybe up to 20 meetings or more in a major city so that would take quite a few small groups) then the review process can open up in that district.
The way I have it set up, it doesn't require many people to generate a review of a U.S. representative, but it requires a large majority of counties within a U.S. district in a rural area, or state districts within a U.S. district in a city. The way I have that set up is arbitrary and would be determined by the state legislatures or the project as it operates within each state.
I'm making it so that the project is recognizable across the country for what it is, but the states run their own chapters in their own way, according to what's right for them and what their state legislatures will agree to. All I do is help get the word out and provide the basic principles and procedures of the project, so that "community organization" is easier from the ground up.
As for media, we'll be making a lot of our own, for the most part, and then there's Ben Swann who might like the idea if you guys like it enough to support it. I expect that if we get any MSM attention, it will be controversial at best, but it's still media coverage. And I read about a poll recently that people trust the media about as much as they trust Congress. That gave me some hope.
I don't think people, even sheeple, necessarily vote for Boehner, McCain, or Graham because they want to. I think they vote for them because their party won't give them any other choice and they refuse to vote for a Democrat. Same goes for the people who keep voting for Pelosi, Reid, and Feinstein. They're stuck. We can get them unstuck. They might start paying more attention to what's going on if they know their voice means something. I think that might be helpful.
If I read Michael's numbers correctly this morning, I saw that there were 44 online at the time, 990 had been on in the past day, and something like 108k guests. We have the numbers to do the town hall meetings. All we have to do is go to town and do some homework and get ready to host the meetings. The rest is just some prep and coordination and talking about the project.
I named the project after my mother who died last year. I'm not trying to do anything illegal, immoral, or underhanded. I'm actually trying to honor her, and you, and Ron Paul. We are his "tireless, irate minority". We can change this country by the next election.
I'm glad you gave me the chance to go into more detail about the legal and moral aspects of the project. Thanks for your input. :-)