|
|
|
|
#1
03-02-2006, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Presidential Recall? A Constitutional Amendment whose time has come...
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process
"The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about." With approval ratings deep enough to give a guy the bends (36%), "lame duck" barely begins to describe the deeply wounded state of the Bush presidency. Whatever your evaluation of his policy objectives, no one can expect that having the remaining period of his term continue under a leader increasingly isolated and alienated from the political class would be good for the nation. Impeachment as a means of expressing "buyer;s remorse" is neither practical nor legitimate. In California, the consitution provides a means for removal of an officeholder for non-criminal reasons. You just have to want the bastard out badly enough to go around and get signatures on a petition. A contitutional amendment can be accomplished with no participation whatsoever from the national government. Perhaps the time has come to invoke this option. To be sure, the introduction in 50 state legislatures of the appropriate bill is well within the reach of the energized sword of the people's vengeance. I venture to say that within ten blocks of my present location are a dozen legislators of my own state who would be delighted to bring up the bill. Ought we not avail ourselves of this salvation, in the face of 35 months until the next president is sworn in? ( Who knows what evil lurks....?)
__________________
THE VISIGOTH WRECKING AND DEMOLITION COMPANY DECONSTRUCTING ANTIQUITY SINCE 410 A.D. "WOT'S IN YER EMPIRE??" 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
03-02-2006, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Under your proposed amendment, if he's recalled, who becomes president? The vice president?
|
|
#3
03-02-2006, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Great idea. Why are you wasting your time posting on this message board when you should be devoting all your free time to accomplishing this lofty goal? I want to see you dedicate yourself to this cause with single-minded devotion. Any future posts you make on this board will be a sign that you're not sincere.
On to the barricades!!!!!
|
|
#4
03-02-2006, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know I'm breaking one of my personal rules, but why exactly isn't impeachment appropriate? Because Republicans control congress? Why can't impeachment proceed after the 2006 elections, if there's so much fear and loathing for Bush that he'd be recalled, surely there will be huge Democratic majorities in both houses, so huge that impeachment would be a foregone conclusion.
|
|
#5
03-02-2006, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That raises the interesting question of whether a constitutional convention is limited in scope to the issue it was called for, or whether it may choose to rewrite the entire constitution. That's a scary thought, at least for me.
Quote:
|
|
#6
03-02-2006, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This would be a recipe for at best, near permanent political instability and at worst, near permanent political chaos. Just days after the 2004 presidential election, the media was speculating on who would run in 2008. The last thing the country needs is for the losing political party in a presidential election, particularly in a close one, to be hungrily licking its chops and scheming to rehash everything as soon as possible.
A president concerned with constantly having to either fight off a recall campaign or campaign for re-election is not an effective president. This is probably why we should just extend a president's term to five years and not allow re-election.
|
|
#7
03-02-2006, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Gladstone said. God, could you imagine the results when _that_ process gets turned into a bargaining chip? Bread and circuses again. I swear, we should just remove the profit motive from politics.
|
|
#8
03-02-2006, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's the only way to be sure.
|
|
#9
03-02-2006, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Dear Mark, As a proud constituent, I thought you deserved first crack....(Of course, I quake at the idea of turning a convention loose on the constitution, and it is not clear that once convened, the amending could be limited to the prescribed topic, but , oh God, the look on Dub's face when a bill gets introduced,....? Priceless.)
|
|
#10
03-02-2006, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Oh what would we give for a parliamentary system. ...Just to have dub sit for an hour of questions would be worth the effort of amending....
|
|
#11
03-02-2006, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
03-02-2006, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, like the Ca. system, the recall emcompasses a choice of replacement. With luck , the nation would not awaken after election day with the equivalent of Arnold as president...
|
|
#13
03-02-2006, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
03-02-2006, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#15
03-02-2006, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#16
03-02-2006, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 You are really grasping at straws now if you seriously think something like this could or would get any traction. Living in the real world however I just don't see the level of disgust or pissed-off-es-ness at GW as you seem to be feeling. If I'm mistaken then by the end of this year the Dems will control both houses and you (seemingly) won't NEED such a far fetch plan...a simple impeachment would suffice I should think.(BTW, for my own education, is 'whose' supposed to be a contraction of 'who' and 'is'? Wouldn't it be "who's"?) -XT
|
|
#17
03-02-2006, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
grasping at straws
no shit. that's what you do when you are drowning, and some fool has thrown the life preserver firty yeards away from you, and there are sharks in between....
|
|
#18
03-02-2006, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why not just buck up and wait it out? There is nothing particularly urgent happening atm because Bush is in charge...not anything that would be rectified by a long and mess Constituation Amendment process to get him out any way. Even impeachment at this point wouldn't really help...except to make you and others feel good about having gotten rid of the man. In practical terms what would you really gain...that you won't gain by merely waiting until '08 and taking another shot at putting a Dem in the White House??
Or do you suppose Chaney would do anything substantially different (or be better) than GW in the top slot? Myself I shudder to think of what Mr Undead would be like as our President...even if he only had 1 or 2 years in the top slot. -XT
|
|
#19
03-02-2006, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#20
03-02-2006, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
a simple impeachment would suffice I should think
alas, that 67 senator hurdle is a bitch and a half--see my remark above. Some repug or other would have to vote a nonexistent conscience
|
|
#21
03-02-2006, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But sometimes I look at this guy, and I say, "Jesus, just how crazy is he.?" My best friend quite casually pronounced him nuttier than Nixon, which to me is scary as shit....
|
|
#22
03-02-2006, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
e Chaney would do anything substantially different (or be better) than GW in the top slot?
certainly any impeachemnt remedy envisages a companion bill for the real boss.... a recall, of course, encompasses a second line for replacement choice if the recall succeeds.
|
|
#23
03-02-2006, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#24
03-02-2006, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 I wouldn't say Bush is 'crazy' either...unless you mean 'crazy like a fox'. I think he plays up the 'good ole boy' persona for effect...and I think he also plays up the 'tough as nails President' as well. Myself, I'm just counting down the days until we get another wonderful politician in there. Soon enough we'll have another fool in the WH to bitch about... -XT
|
|
#25
03-02-2006, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(BTW, for my own education, is 'whose' supposed to be a contraction of 'who' and 'is'? Wouldn't it be "who's"?)
Not where the reflexive operation embraces an inanimate rather than animate object.
|
|
#26
03-02-2006, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, you might see that as a step up...-XT
|
|
#27
03-02-2006, 07:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
*22%
|
|
#28
03-02-2006, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#29
03-02-2006, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rationale-O-Meter
Only an ingrate would cavil at any support, but candor obliges me to acknowledge the heavy burden you volunteer to carry here.....
|
|
#30
03-02-2006, 07:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Besides, it was supposed to be merely funny... -XT
|
|
#31
03-02-2006, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
(watch out world, here comes Arnold. ...A runaway convention refusing to stop with one amendment, takes a crack at the native born requirement...Talk about your law of unintended consequences
|
|
#32
03-02-2006, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Of course, perhaps they would choose to set aside the entire constitution and make GW King or something.  -XT
|
|
#33
03-03-2006, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Why do you find this scary? If there were such a widespread support for entirely rewriting the constitution, in all likehood, nobody would bother about following the procedures mentionned in the current constitution to do so. For instance, the congress could write a new draft and have it approved by popular vote or something similar. At the end of it, a constitution is only a piece of paper. It stands only as long as it's generally supported by the population. If it isn't anymore, then people won't care about following its provisions to draft a new one. Finally, why would the prospect of a new constitution be so scary? In all likehood, the main rights, freedoms, etc.. people feel are important would be kept. And if they don't care anymore about them, then, once again, the constitution is worthless, and could be suspended on a whim. If 90% of the american population wanted Bush to become dictator for life, then he could just proclaim himself dictator for life without worrying about the existing constitionnal procedures for revisions. So, the only issue is whether or not the US population would support a complete overhaul of the constitution, not whether or not there's an existing procedure to rewrite it entirely. There's no constitution in the UK, the british system could be entirely changed overnight to become, say, the People's Republic of England and Wales, so if they were like you, british people should be very scarred. But there's no chance that such a thing would happen, because there's no support for such a change. By the way, I would add that there's something I don't like about constitution. We don't get to to approve it. Nobody asked for my opinion about the french one, and barring you being an immortal, you probabbly didn't have a say in the american one, either. So, IMO, there must be a way to amend, suspend, entirely rewrite a constitution. There's no conceivable reason why, in a democracy, we should be held by a choice made by long dead forefathers. Actually, I think that ideally, a constitution should have to be periodically reapproved. We should have, at least once in our life, a chance to approve or reject the constitutionnal system of the country we're living in. Of course, that could prove a dangerous exercise, but, once again, if people aren't concerned anymore with fundamental rights, for instance, then they're going to dissapear, whether or not they've been written on this piece of paper. And having to "review" constitutions from time to time would open debates, allow for minor changes (say, in the USA, suppressing the electoral college), rewriting (say, still in the USA, the weird article about the right to own weapons and militias), additions (the debate about abortion), etc...For example the OP proposal of a recall procedure could be implemented. If major changes (say, bolishing fredom of speech or religion) are seriously discussed, it's already too late, anyway, so there's no need to worry about it.
|
|
#34
03-03-2006, 10:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If low popularity numbers were a reason for recall, we wouldn't have had a president in the last 8 presidencies to survive.... well with the exception of Bush W.'s first term...
Some people have REALLY short memories... Clinton, Bush the first, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy (yes JFK); ALL had popularity numbers of less than 50% for a significant portion of their terms....
|
|
#35
03-04-2006, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the fear of a constitutional convention arises from an apprehension that given the chance, modern americans would show a very short sighted failure to appreciate the bill of rights, and excise several of them from the new draft...
|
|
#36
03-04-2006, 03:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
When thinking about supporting laws like this, you should always consider whether you'd want that law to exist when the tables are turned. The Democrats were heavily in favor of a 'special prosecutor' law when Reagan was in office. So they got a special prosecutor, and it turned into a nightmare for Bill Clinton.
If there's a 'Presidential Recall', just imagine what will happen if a Democrat wins the White House next time around, and the Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, and Republicans outnumber Democrats by 55-45 in the nation as a whole. Suddenly that law won't look so attractive.
|
|
#37
03-04-2006, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
