“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…?)
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.
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.
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.
Introduction? No doubt. Passage? No way. Looked at the political makeup of the 50 state legislatures lately?
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.
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.
Did you pay attention to the last time we had a recall in California? It was an incredible waste of time and money, a serious disruption of the political process, and we elected a movie star who, surprise surprise, has been ineffectual and now has a dismal approval rating. Under the theory that the several states are a useful testing ground for democratic experiments, we should declare the “recall election for arbitrary reasons” to be a complete failure and, if necessary, take off and nuke the whole Constitution from orbit.
Funny you should say that, herewith a copy of a section of my note to my own assemblyman…
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.)
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…
Congress has the power to censure a president, as some of the less partisan congressmen discussed doing just before the impeachment of President Clinton. Unlike a vote of confidence, however, a censure is just an official notice of disapproval and not something that would trigger new elections.
I believe that even the most favorable electoral outcome in 06 would still require a number of republican senators to vote their conscience to remove…That being the case, the world will get no relief from this quarter…
:rolleyes: 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”?)
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.
What makes you think that? Congresscritters run as individuals first, party members second (and most voters seem to view them the same way). And they have the advantage of incumbency.