Oregon Oregon Constitution, Art 2, Sec 22 This could be Big!!

[nammac]

This news is bad for my idea of people from other districts helping out candidates in close race districts. Fortunately it would still allow us to volunteer for campaigns in other districts but will eliminate options for donating $ to other campaigns

Can still contribute financially, just needs to be kept under 10% of all contributions

 

[nammac]

Would Gov. Brown be excluded from this since she doesn't have a specific "district" other than the State? It just seems to good to be true, but if it is legit it would be a great reason for a recall effort if there is no other mode of enforcement?

No recall necessary, if more than 10% comes from outside their district and is proven to be true, they forfeit their office, period. And are banned from holding office for a period of 2X the term they sought or were elected to. It's a great provision and might just be a way to get some of these legislators out of office. What a way to shake Oregon up!!!!

 

[arakboss]

Can still contribute financially, just needs to be kept under 10% of all contributions

True but I think maybe this is federally unconstitutional.

 

[nammac]

True but I think maybe this is federally unconstitutional.

Haven't found anything yet, there FEC rules for federal campaigns, didn't find anything at the federal level pertaining to state campaigns....

If there's something there to hang our hopes on, then this all should go underground, don't want it visible to the other side... Just sayin'

 

[Geardo]

If true, I suspect you orgunners may have to attempt a citizens arrest. That will be interesting. No way it will ever see the light of day legally.

 

[alv7722]

If true, I suspect you orgunners may have to attempt a citizens arrest. That will be interesting. No way it will ever see the light of day legally.

Hate to burst my own bubble. From a post from Bill Post on FB, it appears that part of Sec 22 was declared unconstitutional. Not the part we are looking at, but possibly the issue is 'unenforceable' because another part was declared unconstitutional. Though, it seems to me, if the wording is still there---there MUST be a way???

 

[nammac]

If true, I suspect you orgunners may have to attempt a citizens arrest. That will be interesting. No way it will ever see the light of day legally.

What armed Oregonians taking their government back from corrupt and bought legislators??? I love to see the day

 

[nammac]

Hate to burst my own bubble. From a post from Bill Post on FB, it appears that part of Sec 22 was declared unconstitutional. Not the part we are looking at, but possibly the issue is 'unenforceable' because another part was declared unconstitutional. Though, it seems to me, if the wording is still there---there MUST be a way???

 

[Geardo]

What armed Oregonians taking their government back from corrupt and bought legislators??? I love to see the day

 

[arakboss]

Hate to burst my own bubble. From a post from Bill Post on FB, it appears that part of Sec 22 was declared unconstitutional. Not the part we are looking at, but possibly the issue is 'unenforceable' because another part was declared unconstitutional. Though, it seems to me, if the wording is still there---there MUST be a way???

If anybody finds the court ruling on this, I would like to read it. I search around the net but couldn't really find anything.

 

[alv7722]

Vannatta v. Keisling

CONCLUSION

Sections 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Measure 9 are declared void. The remainder of Measure 9 is not invalid on any ground urged by the petitioners in this proceeding.

We need a lawyer(s) The conclusion seems to specifically state that Sec 22 would still be valid??????

 

[BillM]

Vannatta v. Keisling

CONCLUSION

Sections 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Measure 9 are declared void. The remainder of Measure 9 is not invalid on any ground urged by the petitioners in this proceeding.

We need a lawyer(s) The conclusion seems to specifically state that Sec 22 would still be valid??????

My brain hurts---that's one heck of a read.
Article II section 22, while related to measure 9, was passed as measure 6 in 1994.
Parts of the above link seems to indicate that the Secretary of State at the time argued in favor of measure
6. Also found a place that said it had not been determined if it was constitutional, pending a ruling by
the 9th circuit.

And if you REALLY want a headache---a little reading on the 9th circuit appeal: Fred Vannatta George Boehnke Center to Protect Free Speech, Inc. v. Phil Keisling, in His..., 151 F.3d 1215 – CourtListener.com

I agree--we need a lawyer.

 

[arakboss]

Vannatta v. Keisling

CONCLUSION

Sections 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Measure 9 are declared void. The remainder of Measure 9 is not invalid on any ground urged by the petitioners in this proceeding.

We need a lawyer(s) The conclusion seems to specifically state that Sec 22 would still be valid??????

Thanks for that link.

 

[alv7722]

My brain hurts---that's one heck of a read.
Article II section 22, while related to measure 9, was passed as measure 6 in 1994.
Parts of the above link seems to indicate that the Secretary of State at the time argued in favor of measure
6. Also found a place that said it had not been determined if it was constitutional, pending a ruling by
the 9th circuit.

And if you REALLY want a headache---a little reading on the 9th circuit appeal: Fred Vannatta George Boehnke Center to Protect Free Speech, Inc. v. Phil Keisling, in His..., 151 F.3d 1215 – CourtListener.com

I agree--we need a lawyer.

48
Here is a dissenting opinion:

"In other contexts the Supreme Court has suggested, sometimes strongly, that states have a strong interest in ensuring that elected officials represent those who elect them. See, e.g., Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 113 S. Ct. 2816, 2828, 125 L. Ed. 2d 511 (1993) (elected officials representing one interest group rather than their entire constituency is a cognizable harm under the fourteenth amendment). In Shaw, the Court was addressing the inverse situation: representatives ignoring much of their constituency in favor of one group of constituents, rather than out-of-district concerns. Id. The analysis, however, underscores the importance of preserving the ties between elected officials and those who elect them. See id."

It would certainly seem our 'elected officials' are serving the interests of persons not eligible to vote in our elections??? Damnit, there HAS to be a handle in here somewhere, we can use to protect our Civil Rights!!

Somewhere in the US Constitution: "each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government". Remember the "impeach Earl Warren" stickers from the 50's??

 

[Nibbs]

"each state is guaranteed a Republican form of government"

IE: FASHIONED AFTER AND
FALLING W/IN THE SCOPE AND AUTHORITY/ IES GRANTED
TO THOSE OCCUPYING THE OFFICES OF GOV AS PROVIDED BY LAW via THE LAW.

As a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC THE LAW IS:
THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE STATES UNITED [1787];
IT'S SUPPLEMENT/ COUNTER MEASURE[*] THE BILL OF RIGHTS [December 15, 1791];
and ANY AND ALL POSITIVE LAW.

[LAST I KNEW THAT ^ WAS 2 CLASSES IN ATTORNEY SCHOOL.]

THE DECLARATION AND PETITIONS OF THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS [1765]
IS A REALLY GOOD PRIMER OF
THE EFFECTS OF KING BILLY THE DUTCHMAN BEING CROWNED AND
THE BEGINNING OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND[1694] AND IT'S USURIOUS PRACTICES.
[NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS... HMMMM.]

ADD THE PRIMARY DOCUMENTS[**] and one can then wrap one's mind around what is going on today.

But there is more.....

THEY CHOOSE to IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION.
THEY INSTEAD FAVOR THE
U.C.C. as the
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND


Remember Pat Henry REFUSED TO SIGN THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE A
BILL 0F RIGHTS WAS NOT ATTACHED......

[*]
"The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States
having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,
in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers,
that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:
And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government,
will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America,
in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring,
that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States,
as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,
all or any of which Articles,
when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures,
to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America,
proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States,
pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."


I'm still wondering where it states the the GOVERNMENT ET AL
HAS ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO EVEN TELL US WHAT ANY OF THE BoR MEAN,
LET ALONE MESS W/ THEM IN ANY MANNER.....

FOLKS, UNTIL SOMETHING VERY DEFINITIVE AND LAWFUL IS PRESENTED SHOWING TH OP'S ORIGINAL CLAIM THEN THIS
IS WORTH PURSUING



[**]
American Revolution and The New Nation, 1763-1815: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)

 

[1Asterisk]

The 2018 Edition of the Constitution of Oregon is posted at the Oregon State Legislature website at https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OrConst.aspx . Article II, Section 22 [as posted by the OP Alv7722] was adopted by the voters in November 1994.

Wouldn't you think...that in the last 23 plus years, had this section been ruled un-Constitutional it would no longer be in our Constitution?

And it appears that contributions to campaigns can be regulated by the state as I mentioned in Post #37 of this thread.

I absolutely agree with Nibbs, "UNTIL SOMETHING VERY DEFINITIVE AND LAWFUL IS PRESENTED SHOWING THE OP'S ORIGINAL CLAIM THEN THIS IS WORTH PURSUING".

I am not a lawyer, but I can do some light research.

 

[1Asterisk]

Our Governess received approx. 22M in donations, 7M of which were from out of state.

Alv7722 - I would be interested in where you found the $$ numbers.

 

[Nibbs]

At the recent Rally I picked up a flyer from
Flush Down Kate Brown [their facebook group]
and signed their petition to recall HER/IT.

www.flushdownkatebrown.com
503/ 714-8484

 

[nammac]

Think about this, a massive cleaning and sanitization of the elected offices that reside in the marble nuthouse, all due to violating the Oregon State Constitution...

At the state level, nothing could possibly be sweeter!!!!

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

OFF surely has capable lawyers at their disposal and would be more than interested in the idea (heh, heh, heh). Maybe check with them?