Weeping Dragon

Author of Blog

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

82% of victims of firearm violence are completely unharmed. Active shooter deaths are on par with lightning strikes. The 2nd Amendment included cannons & battleships. Rapid-fire high capacity firearms have existed since the 1300's.

"I do not hesitate to affirm, that the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
- Tench Coxe (1788)

The Constitution's "Checks & Balances" were designed to make the government weaker, but 3 changes in the early 1900s destroyed them. The extreme & widespread corruption of the government today is not a surprise. The Founders knew it would happen, and they gave us the tools to fight it. And one of them is probably not what you expect: The Trial-by-Jury is far more powerful & important than most people realize, and jury nullification is an explicit feature, not a bug. The jury trial forces the government to ask the people for permission to enforce the law. The jury is the conscience of the law, and in a trial-by-jury, the law is on trial, just as much as the defendant.

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;"
- The Federalist No. 62 (1788)

"All the cases agree that the jury have the power to decide the law as well as the fact; and if the law gives them the power, it gives them the right also. ... It is essential to the security of personal rights and public liberty, that the jury should have and exercise the power to judge both of the law and of the criminal intent."
- Alexander Hamilton (1804)

For much more of both primary source statistics, and a deep understanding of the design & intent of the Constitution as a whole, as well as the 2nd Amendment, check out the articles on: https://t.co/6IAt6dBxG0

or get a copy of the book:

Gun Violence: Statistics From Primary Sources
&
The Constitution & The 2nd Amendment: Their {Design & Intent} in the Founder's Own Words

Paperback (Offset Printed) - Higher quality, but may be out of stock
https://t.co/aJlEi1JQWp

Paperback (Print On-Demand)
https://t.co/e2jypfOaQX

Kindle
https://t.co/vd57COzM8e

#Constitution #2A #USA #Freedom #Liberty

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

https://t.co/Tx2EwpFcVG

Discover the true purpose of trial by jury and the powerful concept of jury nullification as intended by the Founding Fathers of the United States. In this in-depth look at the ancient origins & Constitutional design of the jury trial, and historical influences like the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, we explore why juries—not judges—hold the ultimate authority to decide guilt, judge the law itself, and protect individual liberty against unjust laws or government overreach. Learn how double jeopardy protections, unanimous verdict requirements, and jury independence were deliberately designed to keep the government weaker than the people, and why even a single juror can halt the entire machinery of the state. Learn why the jury is the conscience of the law, how it protects citizens from unjust laws and overzealous prosecution, and the enduring principle that all government authority comes from the consent of the governed.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

Because 6 year terms in the Senate is not frequent enough. Also, recall was a means for State governments to enforce their authority over their Senators. Without recall, and now with Senators being elected by popular vote instead of appointment by the States, it has effectively severed all State power in the Federal government. Also, Congress expelling one of their own members is useless of members of Congress become more loyal to each other, than to their constituents, and/or of most of them are corrupt. In my opinion, both are the case today.

If you want to know more, watch the video, or read the original article on my blog.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

https://t.co/PHtbsMieeR
The Flaw in Congress

In part 5 of the Intro to the Constitution, we explore a major flaw in the U.S. Constitution—the absence of any legal mechanism to recall members of Congress. Unlike under the Articles of Confederation, neither U.S. Senators nor Representatives can be removed by voters or state legislatures during their term, except by death, resignation, or expulsion by their chamber. This video breaks down the Founders’ reasoning, the heated Federalist vs Anti-Federalist debates, the impact of the 17th Amendment, and how this flaw affects accountability in modern politics. Featuring historical quotes, legal precedent, and real-world consequences, this is a must-watch for anyone interested in government reform, constitutional history, and restoring state power.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

You clearly haven't watched the video. Even half the founders agreed that it was a flaw. Re-election is not recall, it's re-election. Recall is kicking someone out of office during their term, and replacing them with someone else. 6 Years is a long time to way while a Senator goes rogue and wields the power of an entire state. Furthermore, the power of recall is a means for the State government to enforce their authority over their Senators. Without recall, and now with Senators being elected by popular vote thanks to the 17th amendment, it has effectively severed all State power in the Federal government. And Congress kicking out one of its own members is useless if the members of Congress become more loyal to each other than to their constituents, and/or if most of them are corrupt; both of which are arguably the case today.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

No, States have laws that allow voters to recall representatives in the State governments. There is not, and never has been a Constitutionally recognized power for representatives in the Federal Congress to be recalled. It was allowed under the Articles of Confederation before the Constution, but was not retained in the Constitution.

If you don't believe me, here's another source that I just provided to someone else. It's a report by the Congressional Research Service. All you have to read is the first page's summary.
https://t.co/fV3sGzJmz6

As for Congress expelling it's own members, I explicitly mentioned that in both the video summary tweet, and the video itself. I'm not sure why you're even bringing that up.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

How about a Report by the Congressional Research Service:
https://t.co/fV3sGzJmz6

"Under the United States Constitution and congressional practice, Members of Congress may have their services ended prior to the normal expiration of their constitutionally established terms of office by their resignation or death, or by action of the house of Congress in which they are a Member by way of an “expulsion,” or by a finding that in accepting a subsequent “incompatible” public office, the Member would be deemed to have vacated his congressional seat. Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of that body present and voting.
...
As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor 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 in Congress exists under the Constitution."

Here's a full text of the Constitution & the Amendments:
https://t.co/fARbw40D6w

Article 1, Section 3:
Defines the Senate, and specifies that Senators shall be chosen by the Legislature (overridden by the 17th Amendment). It makes no mention, nor grants any power, to the States to recal their Senator after they've been appointed. Under the Articles of Confederation, the right of recal was explicitly retained, yet in the Constitution, it wasn't even mentioned. It does, however, grant the Senate "the sole power to try all impeachments."

Article 1, Section 4:
Specifies that the "times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be presecribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators." Again, it says that States can decide how to chose their representatives, but never gives them the right to expel or replace them, and also grants The federal Congress the right to override State's decisions on such matters.

Article 1, Section 5:
Grants each House of Congress the power to expel their own members: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." But mentions no such power for the States.

17th Amendment:
Alters appointment of Senators to popular vote, and specifies how States should respond "when vacancies happen", but again, makes no mention of State's ability to recall their representatives, nor force them to resign, etc.

Or, you know, you could google this stuff yourself.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

@AmosBrown165657 Yep, unless they die, resign, or the other Congressmen kick them out.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

What? This is not talking about States recalling representatives of other States. This is talking about States recalling their own representatives, which they are not allowed to do. Even in the original design of the Constitution, States did not have the authority to recall their own Senators. Once a Senator was appointed, the only entity with the authority to expel them was the Senate. Congress has the power to expel one of its own members. It was yet another philosophical divide among the Founders. The Federalists opposed States being able to recall their Senators, while the Anti-Federalists believed that it was vitally necessary. Ultimately, the Federalists won out, and no power of recall was allowed.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

@mcaristotle888 That's the "expulsion by their chamber" part. Congress can kick out one of their own sitting members, but the people that elected/appointed a member of Congress, can't kick them out and replace them.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

Only representatives in the House serve 2 year terms. Senators have 6 year terms, but the terms are staggered so that a third of the terms expire every 2 years, but each Senator serves a full 6 years.

The issue of frequent recall is discussed in the video. The Federalists believed that the risks were too great, but they also believed that Senators should ignore their states wishes and defer to the Federal government's wishes "in every case". The Anti-Federalists believed that Recall, especially in the Senate, was vitally necessary for the stability of the system.

The Senate's purpose is to give State governments power in the Federal government. Without recall, States have no means of enforcing their authority over their Senators except the threat of not re-appointing them. If Senators betray their States, the State can't do anything but watch helplessly for up to 6 years. And with the 17th Amendment switching from appointment to election of Senators, it effectively severed all power of the State governments in the Federal government. And without the States, there is basically zero oversight of Senators.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

@Piotr_Bedny 6 year Senate terms are not frequent. And the founders were not all in agreement. It was only the Federalists who rejected recall. The Anti-Federalists saw it as vitally necessary; especially in the Senate.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

The republic vs democracy issue was the first video in the series. It's a bit more complicated than just a republic, but yes, we are not a pure democracy.

The potential disruptions caused by frivolous or excessive recall, as you point out, is discussed in the video. It's a risk, but in the original design of small districts & state appointment, the benefits of recall far outweigh the risks; at least in the eyes of the Anti-Federalist Founders, and myself.

Two-year terms are only for the House of Representatives. The Senate's terms are 6 years, but the terms are staggered, so that a third of them are replaced every 2 years, but each Senator still serves their full 6 years.

The issue with having no power of recall, at least in the Senate, is that their terms are so long, and also the original purpose of the Senate, which was to give the State governments control in the Federal government. Senators are supposed to convey the will of their State into Congress. Without the power of recall, States governments have no way to enforce their authority over their Senators, and thus there is effectively zero oversight of Senators. And if a Senator goes bad, all the State can do is watch helplessly for up to 6 years while they betray their State, and just try to elect someone better next time. But the 17th Amendment switching from appointment to election of Senators, effectively severed all power of the State governments in the Federal government.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

The State legislature could only appoint them, and thus appoint someone new at the end of the previous Senator's term. They couldn't recall their Senator during the term. That was in the original design. The Anti-Federalists fought for recall, but ultimately the Federalists won out. The 17th Amendment only switched from appointment to election by popular vote of the citizens.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

They shouldn't be spending ANY time campaigning. That was the focus of the previous video. In the original design of the Constitution, Senators were directly appointed by the State governments, for the purpose of conveying the will of the State governments in Congress, and exerting State control over the Federal government. Without recall, there is ZERO oversight of Senators, and no means of enforcing State authority over them, and they are guaranteed their position for 6 years.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

Expulsion is Congress kicking out one of their own members, which is not very useful if the majority of Congress is more loyal to each other than to their constituents. The "flaw" is not allowing those constituents to make the decision to replace their representative; States replacing their Senators, and voters replacing their Representatives in the House.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

That's the power of Congress to expel one of its own members, or as the video summary says "expulsion by their chamber". Recall is talking about people outside the Congress replacing their representative in Congress. Ex: States replacing their Senators, or voters replacing their Representative in the House.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I thought people might hate the voice. No, it's an AI voice reading the text of the original articles on my blog. It took a while to find a good voice, and I often have to generate the voice-over multiple times, to weed out the AI weirdness. My original intent with the blog was to be completely anonymous, so that people would focus on the data & arguments, rather than me. Using my real voice kind of felt like breaking that barrier.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

@Tech_Support87 States could not recall their Senators. That's what the video is about. Electing Senators by popular vote (i.e. the 17th Amendment) was the previous video.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

@realk7vv Which doesn't help if the other Senators are more loyal to other Senators than they are to their respective States. And waiting for re-election means that you're limited to term boundaries. For Senators that's 6 years.

[Weeping Dragon @WeepingDrag]

You don't need term limits if you have recall. Let them stay as long as they're good, and kick them out as soon as they go bad. If they're bad, then kick them out immediately, why have to wait until the end of the term? (which for Senators is 6 years) And if they're good, why stop them from serving another term? And if you don't have recall, then States have no mechanism to enforce their authority over their Senators, and if their senator betrays them, they can't do anything but watch helplessly for 6 years.