Just kind of noodling this out in my own head....
"Unresponsiveness to the needs of the officer's constituents shall be adequate reason for the recall of any elected public officer."
Kind of vague in terms of "unresponsiveness." Does this mean if the official only responds to 4 out of 5 emails or letters or questions from constituents, s/he's unresponsive?
And is the unresponsiveness cause for a petion for a recall, or for the recall itself? Or both?
I'd rather see something along the lines of violating oaths of office.
The trouble with that is that the "defending the Constitution from all enemies" clause in many oaths leads into a question of "what is un/constitutional?" until it gets to the Supreme Court(s). Until a law is officially declared unConstitutional by the Courts, anyone can say that the law they voted for is, in their opinion, constitutional.
However, this kind of recall activity might lead to a more rapid determination of Constitutionality while the scoundrel is still in office and hence immediately responsible for his unconstitutional lawmaking.
Does that make sense?
It does to me, sorta, but the mechanics have to be worked out a little better. I've been banging my head against the wall for years trying to figure out how to short-stop lawmaking which is blatantly unconstitutional in my own opinion, but is "constitutional" in their opinions, without waiting ten to fifteen years for it to make it into the court system.
Terry, 230RN