Revoking Bush from power

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mymemory, Aug 31, 2005.

  1. mymemory macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #1
    What it takes to create a referendum in the US and revoke Bush from presidency?

    I see so many thing going wrong and so many people complaining but from their coutch. Bush too the US to a senseless war, he was supoosed to hund for Bin Laden but he went after Hussein who was doing nothing to the US.

    Then, the US army has killed more civilians than Sadan himself. You will have to add the soldiers who dies as well.

    No weapons of mass destruction found but Bush just do not care.

    Now there are problems with Chavez. Chavez is a complete liar with oil and Bush is so lame that no matter what Bush says, Chavez will still looking good.

    So... if we ad the terrible economic episode the US is facing (and it is going to get worse).

    Why no one is thinking in asking for his resignation with a referendum?

    In Venezuela we did it many times for less than that.
     
  2. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #2
    Mymemory, read the Constitution. The referendum of which you speak is called the Presidential election, and it happens every four years. Bush is in his second term and is therefore ineligible to run again.

    The only other means by which he could be removed from office is through impeachment. Since both houses of Congress (the House and the Senate) are controlled by Republicans, the odds of Bush being impeached for anything he's done so far are zero.

    There is NO mechanism for the citizenry to vote a standing President out of office.
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Well for many reasons.

    For one, his core supporters have most of the guns. ;) (Just kidding)

    There is no mechanism for a popular removal of the president in this country. For instance in my state of California we had a provision in our state constitution that provided for a ballot-led removal of the governor. This provision was exercised about 2 years ago with Arnold Schwartzenneger replacing the unpopular incumbent.

    But the federal government has no such provision. The only legal mechanism for removing a president from office is impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate. Unlike when Clinton was impeached and acquitted, both of these bodies are controlled by members of his own (Bush's) political party who have shown amazing levels of loyalty to Bush of far more difficult decisions than whether to support the removal of their leader from power.

    That leaves some form of popular revolution, and that is so far outside of what Americans want to do, that it would have to get much, much worse than it is now to even begin to contemplate that outside of the radical fringes. And you would have to have the tacit support of the military to get far, and there's not much chance of that. Most soldiers would be loathe to attack the institutions they serve.

    Also this country is almost evenly divided politically. Polititians have exploited and expanded this divide seeking an advantage but it has come down to almost a 50-50 split. While many former Bush supporters are unhappy with him right now, many of them would still rather perform their own lobotomy than see a member of the opposing party in power again. With such a division present and such distrust between the sides, there is little chance of cooperation between sides.

    And finally, regional difference would preclude any coherent action. The south and the middle (the 'heartland') would resist any attempts by the eastern and western coasts to try and dictate what they do. And they're Bush supporters.

    Edit: Apologies for the repetition of Clay's points. I started before he posted.
     
  4. Roger1 macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #4
    <Rhetorical question> Why does the phrase "Power to the People!" come to mind, when I read this thread? </Rhetorical question>
     
  5. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #5
    Maybe the Venezuelans should organise an assassination.
     
  6. dops7107 macrumors 6502a

    dops7107

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Location:
    Perth, Oztrailya
    #6
    LOL!

    Damned shame we can't get rid of Bush. Hang on, we? I mean you guys over the pond. It's painful enough for us, watching him mess up - what must it be like for you lot? Now I think of it, I dunno how we'd get rid of Blair before an election. I guess it would take a vote of no confidence in Parliament.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Hmm..is it possible for a hurricane to hit D.C.? :)
     
  8. mymemory thread starter macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #8
    We tried but people get chicken about it :rolleyes:

    Chavez was the one adding the referendum instance when he created the new constitution. This referendun can be recalled compiling one third of the signatures of the population elegible to vote and is done half way his period.

    Ok, everything here sounds very nice so far.

    The problem is that, he has mayority in the congress, mayority in supreme court and mayority in the electoral council. Despite that he is using electronic electoral machines developed by (sorry I do not recall the name) some company whos president is left wing and the son of one of his ministers.

    clayj, referendum is not an election, in fact (or in theory) any democratic elected president should be available to be revoked if the mayority of the population are agreed on that at any time of his period. You just need to collet enough signatures and that is it ( I know it sound easy ).

    That was a topic disscussed many times back home about the legal implications of it. We actually did it 3 times and the government reacted saying "the question on the top of the sheet of paper was not elegible and was vague".

    But remember, the president is a public worker and we are his bosses and we can fired him any time we want to. We pay him to work for us, not to dictate us.

    So, the will of the majority people in a democracy can overcome any law because it is based on the people's will.... at any time. Of course politicians are not that interested in telling you you have such power.

    In case of Cahvez, he dictated that to make himself look good, he is a populist. Like now when he said "I will like to give cheap gas to the poor people in the US". He is not going to do that ever and he is not capable of doing it but he just want to make himself look good infront of other people, and having Bush as a counter part... is gonan be easy for him because Bush is too much of an idiot and Chavez just do not respect anybodys spaces. You can espect anything from Chavez.

    Actually, when he started his political period he gave an speech on San Valentines day and he said on national tv to his wife "Dear, wait for me at home because I feel like giving you a good time"...

    7 years ago Venezuela was such polite educated culture and all that have been desintegrating totally.

    Any way, just wanted to give some experience about Referendum but theorically it is possible and accepted by the US cosntitution or any other democratic regime.
     
  9. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #9
    Sure, we've had hurricanes in DC - but by the time they get here, they're just another thunderstorm. :)

    Unless they can pin some kind of serious crime on him, like a written confession that he knew the WMD claims given to congress were BS, we're stuck with him for another 3 years and 5 months. Scary.

    Too bad my wife is happy with her job, because I'd love to work overseas again for the next... oh i dunno... three and a half years.
     
  10. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #10
    Dictionary.com defines a referendum as "the submission of a proposed public measure or actual statute to a direct popular vote; such a vote." For all intents and purposes, it is an election... you have to set up the polls, hire election workers, etc. You're just not voting to put someone into office; you're voting to make a decision about something (namely, do they get to stay in office?).

    The US Federal government has no such provision. Some states, like California, do, for their elected officials. But there is no way to remove a President from his office before his term is up aside from impeachment. The US is not a democracy; it's a Constitutional republic. True democracies don't really exist in the real world; no nation I know of calls on its entire citizenry to vote on every single proposed law or measure.
     
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #11
    Everything here is based on the Constitution...and the Constitution give us no such provision.

    There was talk after the 2000 election of secession -- the blue (liberal) states would leave the union and form their own country -- and the talk intensified a bit after the 2004 election. Republicans laughed it off, but if things continue going this way, such talk will get stronger after each Republican victory.

    That's the only way it's likely to happen...not an overthrow of the existing government.
     
  12. ~loserman~ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Land flowing with Milk and Honey
    #12

    I agree with you but would say that the U.S. better classified as Democratic Republic.

    http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html
    "Is the United States a democracy?
    The Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

    The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

    By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

    Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

    . . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).
    Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

    There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).
    In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

    To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no.""




    I've always thought this quote sums up a democracy.

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage.
    --Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian

    Doesn't that sound just like the history of the United States so far.
    The future doesn't look good.
     
  13. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #13
    Talk of splitting the US into two nations, Red America and Blue America, is just plain DUMB because of the fact that in virtually no state is the ratio of one party to the other greater than 60:40... in other words, states that are Blue (went to the Dems in 2004) still have something like 40% or more of GOPers, and vice versa. (Idaho, Wyoming, and/or Utah are pretty solidly Red; and Massachusetts is pretty solidly Blue.)

    In order for such a partitioning to have any meaning, there would have to be a mass exodus of Dems from Red states, and GOPers from Blue states... the result being that Blue America would have roughly the same population as Red America, but they'd be jammed into a space not even 1/4 the size, with little natural resources.
     
  14. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #14
    [John Dickinson] Talk of splitting England and her American colonies into two nations is just plain DUMB because of the fact that there are a great many people loyal to the Crown in those same colonies; in some colonies they are the majority. [/John Dickinson]

    :p I'd like to see that!

    Well, allowing the assumption that most people would actually play "musical chairs" and follow their respective parties...so what? Half the U.S. population already resides in New England, in the Great Lakes region and on the west coast. So you'd merely be shuffling bodies around. Little natural resources? Debatable, but they'd have the prime business centers and much of the seaboard.

    We went through all this ten months ago. I merely wanted to suggest a more actionable possibility to mymemory, not dredge up that whole argument again.
     
  15. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #15
    Shove all of the conservatives into rhode island (maybe we can give them another tiny New England state too) and leave the remaining 48 states for the Dems. Sounds fair :D
     
  16. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    There are different forms of Democracy. The direct democracy that existed in places like ancient Athens (admittedly without the voice or vote of the female population and thousands of slaves) no longer exists in that form on a national level anywhere in the world. That doesn't mean there aren't democracies or that the US isn't supposed to be one. It is organized to be a "representative democracy." There is no contradiction between that idea and a Constitutional republic.

    Now whether we live in a democracy when votes aren't counted, is another question all together.
     
  17. ~loserman~ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Land flowing with Milk and Honey
    #17
    The opposite would be closer to the truth. The Dem's like the small confined areas whereas the Repub's like the wide open areas.
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    i'd claim a correlation between population density and the ratio of libs to conservatives. so, i suggest that new york, chicago, LA and SF secede, forming a single, non-contiguous nation. other cities can join if/when they see fit.
     

Share This Page