Impeachment resolution filed against Baker

March 30, 2010 13:43 pm

by Jason · 54 comments

You no doubt recall that House members frustrated with Attorney General Thurbert Baker’s refusal to take on the federal government regarding the health care legislation passed on March 21st began circulating Articles of Impeachment. You can hear Baker’s reasoning here.

State Rep. Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross) filed the resolution this morning, which has 31 signers, to impeach Baker.

There is no indication that leadership is backing the resolution now that Gov. Sonny Perdue has chosen to appoint a special attorney general to join with attorneys general from other states in a lawsuit in hopes that the Supreme Court will overturn almost 70 years of precedent stemming from the Progressive Era.

Mayonnaise March 30, 2010 at 1:47 pm

Link to resolution?

polisavvy March 30, 2010 at 1:59 pm

Names of the 31 signers, if you know them.

Jason Pye March 30, 2010 at 2:09 pm

I know a couple, but you can wait another day.

polisavvy March 30, 2010 at 3:16 pm

Thanks, Jason.

Jason Pye March 30, 2010 at 2:09 pm

It won’t be posted online until tomorrow. They don’t post immediately.

Andre March 30, 2010 at 2:04 pm

These senseless articles of impeachment are a distraction.

They are meant to distract the people of Georgia from the GOP’s ethical lapses as well as their inability to pass a viable plan for water and transportation.

Shame on state Rep. Mark Hatfield and the 31 co-sponsors of this waste of time.

griftdrift March 30, 2010 at 2:19 pm

*shakes head*

ZazaPachulia March 30, 2010 at 2:21 pm

Again, Georgia’s GOP is reminding voters that it is not necessarily the Democrats who need to go in 2010… It’s the incumbents.

griftdrift March 30, 2010 at 2:23 pm

It took the Democrats 130 years to lose power. It appears the Republicans are determined to do it in less than 10.

Daniel N. Adams March 30, 2010 at 2:33 pm

Our turn!

GOPGeorgia March 30, 2010 at 2:37 pm

+ 5%

ByteMe March 30, 2010 at 9:37 pm

If that.

GOPGeorgia March 31, 2010 at 12:59 am

It’s one of those strange days where Byte and I agree.

NorthGeorgiaGirl March 30, 2010 at 3:10 pm

I don’t know where you all live, but that kind of thing will play very well in our county.

Rick Day March 30, 2010 at 4:57 pm

That is because AG Baker has read what the GA Lege has not.

Precedent.

I cite SCOTUS Raiche v Gonzales, the 2005 medical marijuana ruling that held that if it is commerce and it can possibly be interstate in any way, shape or form, then Congress has complete oversight.

No authority to force citizens to buy something?

As one of its earliest actions, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by President George Washington. It mandated that “each and every able-bodied white male citizen” must “be enrolled in the militia.”

Hardly shy about imposing federal regulations on private citizens, the militia law said that each new recruit must show up within six months carrying “a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a knapsack [and] a pouch to contain not less than 24 cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/27/nation/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27/

So Republicans want to waste a few $10 millions on a partisan driven lawsuit that can clearly pass Constitutional muster? Where were you during the Patriot Act? Oh, right. Wrapped in our flag somewhere…

Unlimited Commerce regulatory authority: Voted on by a conservative court majority. With a majority Republican Congress. With a Republican President arguing for the defendent.

Because it was for the children!

eat it. Just shut the hell up and eat it.

AubieTurtle March 30, 2010 at 7:00 pm

I wonder if the people who are upset at the government forcing citizens to buy something are going to protest Kennesaw’s law requiring every head of household to own a gun. The law has been around for quite a while and I haven’t heard anyone complain about that aspect of it.

polisavvy March 30, 2010 at 7:12 pm

The reason people don’t complaint about it is because people aren’t fined for not owning one. In all the years we lived in Kennesaw, I never knew of any of our neighbors or friends being fined. On the contrary, people will be fined it they don’t buy the insurance or whatever else the Government requires people to do. I think that’s probably the biggest difference.

benevolus March 30, 2010 at 8:02 pm

In other words, the law isn’t enforced.

polisavvy March 31, 2010 at 9:03 am

True, but it appears that the feds are going to enforce this one. One thing about the Kennesaw gun law, the crime is not crazy bad there. It proves to be a deterrent.

Republican Lady March 31, 2010 at 9:17 am

Imagine that. No self-respecting criminal is going to rob someone who has the means to fight back. Sounds like a primer on how to cut crime without really trying doesn’t it?

polisavvy March 31, 2010 at 9:21 am

Doesn’t it though? It worked. We were able to leave our doors unlocked and we could let our kids play outside without any worries. Great tool for piece of mind.

ByteMe March 31, 2010 at 9:19 am

Crime’s also not bad in nearby Woodstock and Acworth, but they don’t have the same gun laws.

Not sure it proved anything other than a way to make headlines back in the mid-80′s.

Republican Lady March 31, 2010 at 9:33 am

I have ten military members in my family from World War II forward to this Iraqi mess. One was at Pearl Harbor, another was a German prisoner of war, a third served as an Army Lt. Colonel under Patton, a fourth spent 13 years in Vietnam, and one of my nephews has gone to Iraq three times.

In researching Pearl Harbor, one reason the Japanese gave as to why they decided against a ground assault was the thought that every American had guns in their homes.

That same image, at least in my mind, can be a deal maker or breaker for those looking for some home to burgle or person to rob. While it might have been a headliner, Kennesaw and by default the surrounding areas, are a heck of a lot safer than say some street corner in any part of the City of Atlanta.

ByteMe March 31, 2010 at 10:13 am

The point I’m trying make (not clearly, obviously) is that there’s causation and there’s coincidence. Was crime ever a problem in Kennesaw? Did anyone compare crime stats before and after the gun law went into effect? Are crime stats for the city similar to most cities of equivalent size or are they significantly better?

And it’s just as likely the Japanese were just responding to all the “old west” movies that were the rage back in the ’40′s. You know, where everyone walked around with a gun strapped on their waist or in their horse’s saddle.

Republican Lady March 31, 2010 at 10:23 am

Gotcha! Sometimes I am dense. Thanks.

AubieTurtle March 31, 2010 at 7:32 pm

It appears I did a poor job of making my point. The point was not whether or not the gun law in Kennesaw has reduced crime… people have been debating for years over if it was the law or the change in demographics of the north Atlanta metro that caused a reduction in crime in Kennesaw.

The point I was trying to make was that some people claim that the HCR law is unconstitutional because it forces people to purchase something. Those same people don’t speak up against the law in Kennesaw requiring heads of household to purchase a gun. Whether or not the outcome of the law is a positive one or a negative one is moot to the constitutionality of the law.

If Kennesaw doesn’t enforce the law, that doesn’t make it constitutional nor does it do much to support those who claim it reduced crime. Either the law, regardless of enforcement or penalties attached, compelled people to purchase guns or it didn’t.

As an aside, I have a strong dislike for laws that aren’t enforced. If they’re not going to be enforced, they should be repealed. Having laws that are ignored until one day someone decides to enforce it is the type of game that was real popular in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. You make laws that will be violated so that everyone lives in fear of speaking out because if they do, the unenforced law suddenly becomes enforced.

Republican Lady March 31, 2010 at 8:20 pm

Good points. I have had a gun for 30+ years and feel everyone wanting one should buy what suits their needs but I am also a strong proponent of taking safety courses for both proficiency and education.

GOPGeorgia March 31, 2010 at 10:32 pm

Aubie,

You do understand that there is a difference in the state or local government requiring a purchase and the federal governement requiring a purchase?

Do you understand this phrase?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

AubieTurtle March 31, 2010 at 11:10 pm

Good point. And you may very well be correct on the issue of it being constitutional for a state (or in this case a local government whose power is granted to if from the state) versus not being constitutional for the federal government to do it. But much like the difference between what is legal and what is ethical, if one is going to call out HCR as being wrong for requiring a purchase against one’s will, then it seems like it would be wrong for a local government to do it as well. It might not be unconstitutional but certainly is using the power of government to compel citizens to purchase something they don’t want to purchase. Would those who are ok with the local Kennesaw government be ok with a constitutional amendment to give the federal government the same power? If no, why? Seems to me using the power of the state to force citizens to purchase something against their will is wrong no matter what level you are on, regardless of what is in the Constitution.

So what is it? Are you ok with politicians using the power of the state to force citizens to buy something as long as it is only local and state governments that wield that power?

GOPGeorgia March 31, 2010 at 11:25 pm

If you read the fine print in the Kennesaw ordinance, there is a contentious objector clause to allow anyone who does not want to own a gun the (continued) right and the will not to have to purchase one. Therefore, there’s no real requirement to HAVE to buy a gun. This is not so in the national HCR bill.

That being said, I believe that government closest to the people is the best form of government. People in Kennesaw know what is best for Kennesaw better than people in Atlanta or DC do.

And finally, yes, I believe the HCR bill is unconstitutional because it overreaches the interstate commerce clause. That is there to regulate commerce between the states and up until now, we could not buy health insurance across state lines.

benevolus April 1, 2010 at 12:46 pm

Yes there is a ‘clause’ like that in the HCR bill. States that don’t want to participate can develop their own systems, as long as they meet certain federal requirements.

GOPGeorgia April 1, 2010 at 8:38 pm

In other words, “do as I say or do as I say.” Gotcha.

peachstealth March 30, 2010 at 5:15 pm

If the Feds can force you to buy insurance, can they force you to open an account of one of the banks they rescued or to buy a GM car or truck?

trainsplz March 30, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Conceptually, it’s not any different from cash for clunkers and the homebuyer credit. So, sure.

macho March 30, 2010 at 7:33 pm

Yes, that’s the problem. To keep up public appearances, they might not “force” you to use it, but the Feds will just do things to put all the other companies out of business except their car companies and their banks; a la Obamacare’s eventual effect on private insurers.

benevolus March 30, 2010 at 8:08 pm

France has had public health insurance since 1945 and their insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals are doing just fine.

The mandate is only that people who get health care (which is everybody) also get health insurance. There is no reason to believe that you will not be able to buy as much insurance as you can afford, just like now.

macho March 30, 2010 at 6:53 pm

This is a major gift to Baker in the Democratic Primary.

fishtail March 30, 2010 at 8:07 pm

This sort of foolishness will enable the Democratic gubernatorial candidate to highlight and lambast the last 8 years of squandered Republican control of the Governor’s office and both houses of the General Assembly.

galiberal March 30, 2010 at 8:55 pm

Racial Politics?: Thurbert Baker, Obama, and the Georgia GOP

http://galiberal.com/?p=9618

What do you think?

Jason Pye March 31, 2010 at 11:34 am

Cause it’s always a race issue.

**sigh**

Icarus March 31, 2010 at 11:55 am

It’s a political issue Jason, because it’s a political process, not a judicial one.

As such, Republicans have to understand that there are political implications to such a move. Anyone who is surprised that the majority white Republicans in the house trying to impeach a statewide elected African American almost on a whim (remember, this almost started as a surprise attack) is kidding themselves if they didn’t think race would be brought up as an issue.

Might be a great strategy during a primary to scream “we fought government controlled health care”. Much bigger implications in the general election, in my opinion.

polisavvy March 31, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Any idea when the names of the 31 signers will be released? I’d be curious to see who all supports this.

Jason Pye March 31, 2010 at 12:07 pm

Six are available on resolution. You’ll need to call the House clerk’s office for the rest.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/sum/hr1866.htm

polisavvy March 31, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Thanks for the link, Jason.

galiberal March 31, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Jason Pye March 31, 2010 at 12:06 pm

I get that, it’s just sad that people always look at it through that prism.

polisavvy March 31, 2010 at 12:26 pm

I agree with you. When are people going to quit looking at the color of someone’s skin and instead just see the person?

galiberal March 31, 2010 at 5:55 pm

Jason,

My post was meant to start a dialogue, not to say that I think that is what is happening. Also, it is important to note that, whether or not it is racial, odds are the narrative will be written as such.

Progressive Dem March 30, 2010 at 9:21 pm

“Have at it.”

galiberal March 31, 2010 at 5:44 pm

Full List of Names. I believe Austin Scott is also on the list, but I am trying to confirm. I have the other 30

http://galiberal.com/?p=9635

polisavvy March 31, 2010 at 5:55 pm

The following are the list of signers, according to galiberal:

The following are the signers of HR 1886 to Impeach of Thurbert Baker

1. Mark Hatfield – 177
2. Bobby Franklin – 43
3. Barry Loudermilk – 14
4. Calvin Hill – 21
5. Sean Jerguson – 22
6. Michael Harden – 28
7. Mark Hamilton – 23
8. Tom Weldon – 3
9. Daniel Stout – 19
10. Charlice Byrd – 20
11. Bobby Reese – 98
12. Steve Davis – 109
13. Tommy Benton – 31
14. Mike Keown – 173
15. Matt Dollar – 45
16. Jay Neal – 1
17. Mark Butler – 18
18. John Yates – 73
19. David Knight – 126
20. Paul Battles – 15
21. Rick Austin – 10
22. Harry Geisinger – 48
23. Billy Maddox – 127
24. Howard Maxwell – 17
25. Greg Morris – 155
26. Edward Lindsey – 54
27. Jeff May – 111
28. Billy Horne – 71
29. Doug Holt – 112
30. Mike Coan – 101

I think you will notice that Austin Scott’s name is not on the list.

galiberal March 31, 2010 at 8:19 pm

Hey Savvy,

Notice my screen name and how the blog is also called GALiberal… thats because its my list. As I said, I am still trying to verify Austin Scott

polisavvy April 2, 2010 at 8:55 am

Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, galiberal (yard work). I have verified and he did not sign HR 1886. And yes, I did notice your screen name. My comment was strictly that if it was not on the list, then it was not on the list. That’s all. Hope you enjoy this wonderful Easter weekend.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }