It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Recall Bush?? Is a Nationwide Recall Election Possible In the USA

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
With the wave of recall elections across the country, especially with small local elections. I wonder how long it will take to start hearing about a possible recall election to give Bush the boot?

Im not sure where to post this?

What do you all think? With Bush's approval ranking sinking in the polls, is a recall possible nationwide? Would the American public support this?

link:
www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
www.findarticles.com...
www.detnews.com...




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Lol, even with a sagging approval rating there is no way hes going to be out of office early. We have to face the sad fact were stuck with him like it or not till the next election.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I believe the term the Americans use to "recall" a sitting president of the US is "impeach", and I suppose there would have to be more "unclassified" evidence of wrongdoing...

Perhaps the Senate would have to move to get most of his "incriminating" documentation "de-classified" and much of it may well involve Mr Cheney.

Richard Nixon "resigned" rather than face an impeachment ordeal. I doubt very much whether this sitting "president" would leave office without a big fight, but time will tell.

The next two years should be VEDDDDDDY interesting indeed.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
The only problem in recalling, or impeaching, Bush is the alternatives...

Cheney?
Condi?
Rove?


Now, if Powell were still in Office, I'd be all for it. I'd boot Bush and Cheney out and make him the President.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
:shk:
Even if you recall or impeach Bush, he will finish out his term.
So the point of recalling him or impeaching him would be what exactly?
A small dimple of a blemish on his resume'?
Ask Clinton if his being impeached has hampered him in any degree or form...





seekerof



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Even if you recall or impeach Bush, he will finish out his term.


Not necessarily. If they were to be found guilty of high enough crimes, they would be removed from office.



www.abanet.org...

Q. What is impeachment?
A. It is a process, authorized by the Constitution, to bring charges against certain officials of the federal government for misconduct while in office.

Q. Who are these officials?
A. Article 2, Section 4, specifies that "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." These "civil officers" include federal judges and cabinet members, but do not include Senators and Representatives, (the Senate and House deal with misconduct by their own members).


With Clinton, the House of Representatives impeached him - yet the Senate's trial ended up clearing him. Thus, he remained in office.

Nixon however decided to resign instead of facing an impeachment.
[edit - i am of the opinion that had Nixon faced his impeachment, he would have been removed from office]

Johnson's impeachment ended in an acquittal.

Unless you're aware of another impeachment that resulted in a conviction but allowed the president to stay in office, your statement "he will finish out his term" has no basis.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 16-11-2005 by negativenihil]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Unless you're aware of another impeachment that resulted in a conviction but allowed the president to stay in office, your statement "he will finish out his term" has no basis.


Time frame. There is no official investigation going on, and there are no high crimes being put forward on which he could be impeached. If that were to happen, a judiciary committee would appoint an investigation team. Putting that team together takes time. Then, if Bush was guilty and acted anything like the Clinton administration did, he would block every route the investigation team would try to take. More time to gather the evidence.

Then you have to take it to the actual judiciary committee. You have to present the evidence, get approval by them, then go over the rules with them for presenting to the House. Following that, House leaders meet with the judiciary committee, and approve or disapprove those rules, and probably make some more. Then the case is tried before the House. Both sides get to present, the House deliberates, then decides.

If it gets past that point, we get to go to the senate, if they're in session. If not, you have to wait until they get back, then the judiciary committee talks rules with the Senate leadership. More time is spent hacking out the new rules.

Then both sides present their case. The senate votes, and removal is established. At this point, the Vice President steps into control, and the Prez starts packing.

The whole procedure takes a wee bit of time. Considering the length of time it takes to appoint an appellate judge, do you think an impeachment would be quick and speedy?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
The whole procedure takes a wee bit of time. Considering the length of time it takes to appoint an appellate judge, do you think an impeachment would be quick and speedy?


I understand it's not a quick process - be it the speed of the actuall process or persons obstructing justice. However, if Bush were to be charged with high crimes, i can't see this process taking an excessive amount of time mostly due to the current scandal(s) and low poll numbers.

Let's be honest here, the media would have a feild day (and not just our domestic media).



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Thank you all for your posts.


Im not saying we should recall Bush, even though I have never liked him. What I am saying is after the California Recall Election this Recall Movement began to spread nationwide, I have heard of many Smaller local elections eg. mayor, alderman, ect that have used the recall effort to give someone the boot.

A recall election is when the pubic revotes for a person in office. Based on there preformance or lack there of.

Impeachment is when the lawmakers boot someone out of office, for comitting a crime. There is a Huge differance.

I just wonder if we will ever see a National Recall effort against a sitting president. Many people who voted for Bush, if givin the oppertuity would change there vote Today.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by LDragonFire]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I just wonder if we will ever see a National Recall effort against a sitting president. Many people who voted for Bush, if givin the oppertuity would change there vote Today.


And if as many suspect, the election (2004) was 'fixed', another vote wouldn't change the outcome, no matter who the majority really voted for.

Should there be a recall? In my opinion, YES!

Should there be an Impeachment? In my opinion, YES!

But taking a nation to war on false pretenses and killing thousands of innocent women and children is not enough to impeach this president. Oh no... He'd have to get caught poking his intern with something for this nation to realize the travesty of his presidency. And at this point, that intern would have to be a known terrorist for the people to unseat this golden boy.

Could it happen in the future. Sure anything is possible. Especially if the election process doesn't get fixed. It's just a matter of timing as to when election accuracy becomes the top priority. Right now we have to worry about terrorists! And corruption in the White House.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
while I'm no big fan of his, removing Bush from office would accomplish one thing.

President Cheney, perhaps we should wait a week before pushing those red buttons.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Well, after Dick Cheney has his heart attack we have Condi, who is then killed for being black and female by the KKK, WKK, Neo-Nazis, uh, any other hate groups out there, which leaves us with who?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by UfoofU
Well, after Dick Cheney has his heart attack we have Condi, who is then killed for being black and female by the KKK, WKK, Neo-Nazis, uh, any other hate groups out there, which leaves us with who?


I'm game but I'm going to demand a bit more pay.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I watched with amazement as Clinton tried to split hairs with his definition for what is is.
I watched with further amazement as our elected officials, many of whom have done worse than Clinton, ran their mouths to impeach Clinton.

Make no mistake, I disliked Clinton and most all he stood for. Impeachment was a cheap shot then and it would be a cheap shot now.
What does it solve as Those Who Rule still rule?
Will it make you all feel better if Bush falls and another takes his place, following the orders of his master :shk:

Do you all really think there's much difference between Reps and Dems? Come ON now :shk:
Why cant you see they're all about the same :shk:



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Yes, they are all about the same.

However, Clinton's impeachment was for a silly personal fault. I hated him for lying to the people. I remember sitting in front of him on the TV and yelling obscenities at him! I'm not saying he's better. I'm saying look at the offense for which he was impeached.

And Bush has done so much worse. What he's done has affected the country and the world in a very negative way with many deaths.

And, no. Impeachment wouldn't help a thing because we'd have another puppet being led by the same puppetmasters. But still. Someone should be accountable for what's happening. Someone should have to pay up.

Yes, they are all about the same. So why isn't Bush being impeached?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, they are all about the same. So why isn't Bush being impeached?


Probably for a number of reasons, mainly:
Lack of momentum for such and the possibility that there were no crimes committed worthy enough for an official massive Senate or Congressional impeachment proclamation, Perhaps if there was a Democratic majority in the Senate, whereas there is currently a Republican majority. I may be wrong here, but was there not a Republican majority during the Clinton impeachment era? That may have something to do with his going thru the impeachment process. Not sure.





seekerof



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
However, Clinton's impeachment was for a silly personal fault.

And Bush has done so much worse. What he's done has affected the country and the world in a very negative way with many deaths.

And, no. Impeachment wouldn't help a thing because we'd have another puppet being led by the same puppetmasters. But still. Someone should be accountable for what's happening. Someone should have to pay up.

Clinton DID do far worse, IMHO, but there was not enough evidence to impeach for more serious crimes.

So, now we should impeach Bush to punish...who?
Certainly not those who are pulling the strings. They remain in the shadows, away from scrutiny and consequences.

Life goes on and, unless changes are made in the way Americans vote,the next president will be much the same as this one. We cannot go back to Camelot :shk:



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Life goes on and, unless changes are made in the way Americans vote,the next president will be much the same as this one.


Agreed.

And the reason Bush should be punished is for following along with the puppeteers. For the part he played in taking a nation to war! Sure, the puppeteers should be punished, and if we had the skinny on them, I would be all for that, too. But if we'd only look, we have enough to impeach this entire administration.

Clinton was impeached because he lied about a personal failing. No one was involved except for himself and a few grown women who were wooed by his 'charm'


Trust me, I'm not standing up for Clinton. I'm saying if he was impeached for lies, it's only fair that this entire administration be tossed out because of the lies that they've planned far ahead and whose consequenses have been far worse.



I watched with amazement as Clinton tried to split hairs with his definition for what is is.


And do you watch with amazement as Bush and Company manipulate and deceive this nation and the world? Or is this just about you being a Bush fan? Because if that's it, there's no reason to discuss this as far as I'm concerned.

Is your point that Bush shouldn't be impeached? That he's not that bad of a president?

Or that it wouldn't do any good so we might as well forget it?

I know we need voting reform, but I don't think that fact should let anyone off the hook. Anyone.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Source
The recall is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process, which, if successful, removes an elected official from office by "recalling" the official's election. In most state and sub-state jurisdictions having this governance component, voting for the ballot that determines the recall includes voting for one of a slate of candidates to be the next office holder, if the recall is successful. It is utilized at the state level in eighteen states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.


The answer is both 'Yes' and 'No'.

No, the recall is not done at a Federal Level to controll everyone who is in office.

Yes, if you could get the State's to introduce a law that would allow them to reallocate their electoral votes. Which is possible but would be very hard to get on a ballot and very hard to get passed.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

What do you all think? With Bush's approval ranking sinking in the polls, is a recall possible nationwide?

Absolutely not, its completely outside the scope of the constituion. In around 3 years bush will not be president. He was elected by a large majority, you don't get to change it merely because he's now unpopular in the poles.


What I am saying is after the California Recall Election this Recall Movement began to spread nationwide, I have heard of many Smaller local elections eg. mayor, alderman, ect that have used the recall effort to give someone the boot.

The major difference is that in california there was a law that already made this sort of thing possible, it wasn't that the governor was unpopular, and people aggitated for his removal, and then he was just removed, it was a pre-existing legal process that just normally isn't done. There is no legal process for removing the president from office by popular vote; iow any such attempt woudl be highly illegal (to actually physically remove him, not to have a quasi-'vote')

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Nygdan]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join