The recall of New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez took a step forward yesterday with a promising oral argument in New Jersey state court.  The New Jersey Constitution expressly provides for the recall of members of Congress representing the state in a provision adopted by a 75% favorable vote of the people in 1995.  The New Jersey state legislature then expressly provided by statute for the procedures for such a recall.

The Committee to Recall Robert Menendez filed papers for the circulation of their petitions to begin last September.  But the Secretary of State, who has no authority to issue rulings on constitutional questions, nevertheless refused to approve them on the grounds that her own New Jersey state constitution must be unconstitutional under the federal constitution, which she said did not allow such recalls.

The three judge appellate panel considering yesterday whether the recall should proceed expressed reluctance to declare a provision of their own state’s constitution duly adopted by the people null and void.  They also seemed receptive to the argument by the recall committee that they were only asking the court for an order for the circulation of petitions to proceed, and there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits that.  To the contrary, the U.S. Constitution protects the political expression involved in signing a petition calling for the recall of an elected official, and the petitioning of government for the redress of grievances.

If the recall committee gets the required signatures from over a million citizens calling for the recall of Senator Menendez, and the majority of citizens vote to recall him in a recall election, and the Senator decides to thumb his nose at the will of the people anyway, then the issue of whether state recalls of members of Congress are constitutional under the U.S. Constitution would be presented to the courts.  But until then all that the New Jersey recall committee is asking for is the freedom of political expression involved in gathering recall petition signatures, and the U.S. Constitution protects rather than prohibits that.

(more…)

You need an ID to board an airplane, cash a check, use a credit card and, even, enter many downtown office building. However, you don’t need an ID to apply for Medicaid and potentially receive thousands of dollars in government benefits. And it doesn’t look like you’ll have to show an ID anytime in the near future, either:

Grassley Amendment #C8

Purpose:

An amendment to require presentation of identification in applying for Medicaid benefits

Description of Amendment:

The amendment amends Title 19 of the Social Security Act to require an applicant (or the parent or guardian in the case of a child under the age of 18) to present at the time of application for Medicaid or CHIP benefits government-issued photo identification and that identification must be authenticated with the issuing agency.

Republicans

CHUCK GRASSLEY – yes, ORRIN G. HATCH – yes, OLYMPIA J. SNOWE – yes, JON KYL – yes, JIM BUNNING – yes, MIKE CRAPO – yes, PAT ROBERTS – yes, JOHN ENSIGN – yes, MIKE ENZI – yes, JOHN CORNYN – yes

Democrats

MAX BAUCUS – no, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER – no, KENT CONRAD – no, JEFF BINGAMAN – no, JOHN F. KERRY – no, BLANCHE L. LINCOLN – no, RON WYDEN – no, CHARLES E. SCHUMER – no, DEBBIE STABENOW -(no vote) MARIA CANTWELL – no, BILL NELSON – no, ROBERT MENENDEZ – no, THOMAS CARPER – no,

Not Agreed to (10-13)

Fraud in Medicaid and Medicare is estimated at around $100 billion a year. Actually proving that someone is who they say they are when applying for benefits would surely trim at least some of that.