Our Elected Officials in Olympia Collectively Cannot Support a One Man Rock Fight
By: James Vaughn
June 26, 2010
Greetings to Everyone in Orting,
I did it again. I filed my third initiative of the year, which will be my last. It’s a beauty. There has been a record number of initiatives this year, for a variety of reasons. Voter frustration has been identified as one of the main causes – Ya Think.
These include measures to prevent restrictions on weapon ownership of any kind ("Jimmy, put that down. A nuclear warhead is not a toy."), repeal all laws passed in 2010, and force the state to collect federal taxes but refuse to forward them to the federal government if Washington doesn’t act right, in which case the state might need to borrow Jimmy’s dad’s warhead.
For those of you who don’t know the legislators in our state make approximately $46K per year. Obviously, we are not electing top talent to represent us in Olympia. Hence, my latest initiative:
Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluation and IQ Test for all Elected Officials
An act relating to the recall of elected officials by adding a new subsection (3) to RCW 29A56 which reads: All legislators are required to take a mandatory psychiatric evaluation and an intelligence quotient test before being sworn into office. All legislators with IQ’s under 80 will be required to wear a pointed cap with a pinwheel attached to the top of the hat and wear a T-shirt that depicts their IQ. For the few individuals that have an IQ greater than 80 but failed the psychiatric examination, their T-shirts will depict in no less than a 16 point font the list of mental deficiencies that were identified in their psychiatric evaluation. By clearly indentifying these elected officials, they will be protected from the recall process due to their diminished mental capacity and insanity.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Policies and Purpose
Sec. 1 Recall is a simple process and the laws are minimal. RCW 29A56 states that an elected official is subject to recall "Violation of the oath of office" means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law. An oath of office is also violated by failure to perform duties of office honestly, faithfully, and to the best of one’s ability. Boccek v Bayley (1973) 81 W2d 831, 505 P2d 814.
Sec. 2 In an attempt to prevent frivolous cases of recall against elected officials, additional requirements have been imposed from rulings on various court cases. In order to protect the liberal tax and spend Democrats who are obviously mentally challenged and mentally unstable, we the people propose a new subsection (3) to RCW 29A 56.
Sec. 3 Whereas our Democratic legislators collectively do not have the ability to support a “One Man Rock Fight” nor can they add or subtract as verified by our current and projected budget deficits, we propose a new subsection to the recall process. This subsection will provide protection for recall because they honestly faithfully are performing their duties as elected officials, even though they are doing so with a diminished mental capacity and significant psychiatric problems.
Whereas, no sensible case can be made for increasing taxes and failing to stream line our state government, we the voters being compassion individuals, propose this new subsection to RCW 29A56 to protect the insane individuals that were elected to office in the State of Washington.