http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache%3ADTZ...

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.

Salt affects people - blood pressure - in different ways. Some people more, others less.

Easy test. Get a blood pressure monitor. Keep taking your average salt intake for ten days-maybe two weeks. Mark down your BP every day - maybe twice a day. (See link below on when to take BP).

After that period with normal salt intake, start the next ten days - or two weeks, with no salt at all.

Repeat the BP measurement for that period.

When all done compare the results. No real change indicates salt doesn't affect you as much as others who find a real change.

Not a guaranteed procedure but ask your doctor or health professional.

Also.....try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertension

As to the topic - not all people are affected by salt in the same way. Such a law banning salt is stupid and irresponsible.

Two points:

First: James Madison said this:

A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance....

Second: Solar flares and whatever other disaster, natural or man-made, can kill satellite communications in an instant. What then?

Must be 30 when sworn in and seated, He can run against Scott Brown in 2012.

National debt is the accumulation of several or many years of budget deficits (and surpluses)... GDP is an annual thing.

Maybe I don't understand the question.

They are not in the Executive Branch. We are talking about the temporary administration of the Executive Branch and NOT succession to the presidency.

Separation of powers! The Legislative cannot run the Executive and so on.

"Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

I know, that's the Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams and ratified in 1780. But it gives you an idea of the separation of powers intended by the Founders.

There has to be someone immediately in charge. Ever hear of the designated survivor during occasions - State of the Union Address - who is in a secure location in case something dreadful happens?

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/... /

http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2010/01/... /

Too many retirees and not enough jobs creating the income to those Frust Funds to secure that future environment.

I don't buy into all this whining about the Trust Funds nor the hand wringing about our grandchildren. I heard the same stuff when I was in my twenties and I remember wondering what would happen when I was ready to retire.

Well, nothing happened. Everything worked as I expected. And when all the boomers retire, they have already started to, they will get their checks and monthly direct deposits just as I am.

Jobs growth is our best course. Now!

Try here: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.h...

"Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government."

Those worthless IOUs earn interest which is much needed income to the Trust Funds over and above what is collected from payroll taxes.

Payroll taxes? H'mm. Does that mean that if all those lost jobs, and then some, come back the SS and Medicare Trust Funds would have a serious windfall? Maybe take us to the 22nd Century before they go bust?

That is what he has asserted after the fact, many, many times. Haig also said: everyone in that room knew what I was talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...

Line of succession

The Cabinet is also important in the presidential line of succession, which determines an order in which Cabinet officers succeed to the office of the president following the death or resignation of the president. At the top of the order of succession are the Vice President, Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate, and Secretary of State. Because of this, it is common practice not to have the entire Cabinet in one location, even for ceremonial occasions like the State of the Union Address, where at least one Cabinet member does not attend. This person is the designated survivor, and he or she is held at a secure, undisclosed location, ready to take over if the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, Secretary of State and the rest of the Cabinet are killed.

Social Security and Medicare payroll collections all go into the US Treasury general collections (the government check book). The individual social security retirement accounts and the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds are simply accounting records that reflect the balances in those accounts.

But try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Securi...

There is the constitutional line of succession, which Alexander Haig, the Secretary of State, was NOT speaking about.

And there is the Executive Branch Chain of Command, which found Haig, the Secretary of State, in the White House in charge because The President and Vice President were not, as they say nowadays, in the house. The White House.

Haig had a discussion later and made the mistake of referring directly to the Constitution to explain his position. He was indeed in charge but not because the Constitution said so. Rather, laws were passed creating a chain of command for the cabinet officials.

Cabinet officials are also in the line of succession to the Presidency if the President and Vice President and the House Speaker and the Pres Pro Temp of the senate were all uh, incapable of moving up per the Constitution - Don't ask.

Drop the unemployment down under 5% ....with jobs....jobs.....jobs!

Now....now.....now!

Yes, retirements will grow but if the jobs and the economy don't keep up with the population growth........then Social Security will be the least of our problems

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2010/012...

Political parties don't "deserve" anything but the loyalty of their enrolled members - most of the time.

Over the years, competitors or opponents to Kennedy and Kerry have been unattractive both politically and otherwise.

We cannot have a government that mandates equal or fair representations for political parties. Political parties should be circumspect and nominate respectable and popular candidates so that all the voters can make choices.

I am a little annoyed that the Democrat lost but I applaud Massachusetts' liberals for voting their albeit angry consciences. I believe they made a good choice, and that the Democratic Party will eventually profit from what seems a nightmarish result for them.

Sen. Elect Scott Brown will represent and be accountable to ALL the voters in Massachusetts and especially to those who voted for him.

He must run again in November of 2012.