The Constitution does not provide for anything like a recall. The only ways to remove a President are impeachment, resignation, or death.
Revolution is always a possibility…
Well yeah, but that would definately be an extra-constitutional method. 
There was a brief article about this in my local paper this morning - that article is here - the story indicates that it’s an LA Times article.
Just thought it might help with the discussion.
Thanks Lsura.
If something looks like a trial balloon, and quacks like a trial balloon, chances are good that it’s a trial balloon.
I could probably come up with a few sceanarios where the USA would use nukes (heck, we HAVE used nukes!) but in the present conflict it seems darned unlikely.
Fact is, we don’t need WMD’s or NBC’s to take Iraq. If we really desire to take over that country we have enough conventional firepower to do it. IF we want it badly enough. C’mon, we could drop rocks on Bagdad from low Earth orbit if we wanted to. IF we wanted to. The question is, what do we want and how badly do we want it?
Now, if someone gassed Washington DC or unleashed smallpox on Los Angeles or set off a backpack nuke in New York City - yeah, then we might respond with nukes. Espeically if the casualties mounted into the tens of thousands. And I think we’re more likely to use nukes than chemical or biological weapons. (My personal opinion only - yours may well differ). But while there’s always a possibly of things getting that out of hand I think the probability of that is still low.
As for the “nuke option not being new” - I remember hearing about that back in late 2001. As an option. So no, strictly speaking it’s NOT new. Let’s be real, the USA has had nukes as an option since 1945. What’s new is that this administration is making a point of reminding everybody it’s an option.
Frankly, I don’t like the corners this administration paints itself into.
Let’s think about this for a minute - we’ve got how many hundred-thousand US troops in the Middle East now? What is going to be done with them? Do I think Dubya & Co. are going to read Mr. Blix’s final report on Iraq and say “OK, he’s complied - let’s all go home now”? Or are they going to feel compelled to use them to “save face”?
Me, if I was running the show, I’d probably say “OK, the show of force worked, boys - pack the rifles and go home”. But I’m not running the show. And since I have never owned a pair of testicles I have exactly zero need to prove what sort of a man I am.
And NO, I DON’T trust this current government when they say “trust us.”. I DON’T trust them - why should I? Yes, I realize there are secrets that must be kept secret, but they seem too damn secretive to me. The “Oh, you’re mistaken, if you knew what we knew you’d agree with us but, of course, you’ll never know what we know so you’ll just have to trust us.” I’m not given enough information to KNOW if these guys are over- or under-reacting.
Yes, Mr. Hussein is a Bad Bad Man, of that I have no doubt. He really should be watched and studied. But is he REALLY a threat to MY country? To ANY country? Since we booted him out of Kuwait he has apparently stayed within his borders. How is that fundamentally different that what we’ve done with Castro and Cuba all these years? Show us the proof, ANY proof.
Attacking Iraq because “he tried to kill my daddy” isn’t good enough. Attacking Iraq for the oil… that’s morally wrong, but from a standpoint of securing valuable resources it at least makes some sense (however unethical). Stopping a proto-Hitler or someone seriously planning an attack on the USA - yes, that is worth going to war for. But there has to be real evidence of it.
It may be farfetched, but not, I think, completely out of the question, depending on what the true purpoe of this war is. According to a very interesting article by Jay Bookman (found at http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html), “This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman.” He goes on to say that " It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the ‘American imperialists’ that our enemies always claimed we were." Using the bomb, if necessary, would be consistent with such thinking. Certainly NOT using the bomb, if necessary, would be inconsistent with such thinking.
Bookman is no conspiracy buff, the plan he refers to is “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century. Of 27 people involved in the preparation of the report, six now hold prominent policy-level positions in the Bush administration: Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Eliot Cohen, I. Lewis Libby, Dov Zakheim, and Stephen Cambone. I think anyone interested in the issues already discussed in this thread will be interested in Bookman’s article.
Isn’t there some sort of procedure for temporarily moving power from President to VP (like that would help) in event the president is incapacitated?
I’m disturbed that there is so much criticism of George W Bush based on media speculation. Why is GWB “insane” because of some speculative media report that has no basis in fact that you were only half listening to? 
Doesn’t the Consitution say it’s the duty of the people to remove any president and/or government that tries to harm the nation, like, by trying to kick-start Armageddon, by any means necesary?
Or do I not understand the Constitution?
IMHO, you’re being a touch oversensitive here. No one in this thread called GWB insane.
On the other hand, I’d like to see you give some backing for your claims that the “media report” is speculative, and has no basis in fact.
No.
This seems like one of those cases where both X and not-X can be news. If the Pentagon didn’t have plans for nuclear war in Iraq, I’m sure some news men would put a spin on it like “Pentagon lacks plans to retaliate against Iraqi nuclear terrorism.” There is one semi-legitimate use I could think of for such plans, and that would be if the Iraqis smuggled a nuke into the United States and detonated it in some major city. As remote as that possibility is, it’s one that I doubt the military planners would rule out. The other, still somewhat far fetched scenario I could see for an American nuclear first strike would be if the Iraqis detonated a nuclear weapon out in the middle of the desert and then declared they had more and would use it if war broke out.
But I doubt that there are any serious plans to use nuclear weapons unless the Iraqis clearly demonstrate that they have weapons of mass destruction and are eager to use them. Politicians are politicians, and they don’t get to the top without a sense of survival. The odds that they could sell an unprovoked first strike to American voters are practically nill, so it’s either scrap the idea or find some way to avoid any future elections. The latter seems as out there as the claims involving a Wal-Mart truck full of signs claiming Clinton was going to declare martial law because of the Y2K bug.
I understand that emotions run high on this issue, but let’s confine ourselves to discussing the legal facts. Whether U.S. nuclear policy is reasonable or unreasonable is fodder for GD, not GQ. Likewise U.S. policy toward Iraq. Whether G.W. Bush or member of his administration are “scary” is not a matter to be decided–or even discussed–in this forum. The factual question is whether a President whose actions or proposed actions are highly unpopular can be stopped by legal means other than throught the regular quadrennial elections process. That is the only thing we are discussing.
friedo, we are not to discuss murder as an option.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
The 25th Amendment allows for the Vice President to take over in cases where the President is unable to discharge his duties. That requires the support of the VP and a majority of cabinet officers. If the President disputes his inability, the VP takes over until Congress votes on the matter, within three weeks. It requires a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress to sustain the VP’s takeover if the President disputes it.
l Sounds like CNN is digging for ratings.
Considering that we want to build up a friendly regime to replace Saddam, NUKING them may not be the best idea in the world.
Section 4 of the 25th amendment says:
So the VP and the cabinet could certainly stage a coup if they really wanted to, as “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” is rather vague. It’s only likely to happen in a very extreme situation though.
The Constitution says no such thing. You’re probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence, in which that duty is given as a justification for rebelling from Britain. But the DOI is not the Supreme Law of the Land, only the Constitution is.
Allow me to clarify. I wasn’t stating that murder was a valid option, merely that there is some precedent for it. 
You are forgetting that Congress already has authorized Bush under H.J.Res.114 – now Public Law 107-243 that:
----The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.-----
Under the above law, Bush already has the legal support of the American People through the Congress. That the Congress gave Bush a blank check is another matter entirely, but probably goes to the crust of the buscuit here.
It’s called impeachment.
We have to be on the losing side first.
The United States has played nuclear brinkmanship since the Truman administration. (Eisenhower did, as did Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. Even Reagan talked about it.)
The Bush administration is rather clumsily using nuclear psy-ops, if you will, to rattle Saddam’s senior military leaders and foment disloyalty. There’s also some element of deterrence involved, as the Bush team wants to warn Saddam that his use of WMD will be responded to in kind. All of which means, of course, that we still wouldn’t use the nuke option. In short, the U.S. leadership knows we won’t use the nuclear option–and so does the Iraqi.
What am I supposed to infer from this in the OP?: