It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Nygdan
Absolutely not, its completely outside the scope of the constituion. In around 3 years bush will not be president.

You're right. However much I would like to see him out of there, impeachment would be the only option.

He was elected by a large majority, you don't get to change it merely because he's now unpopular in the poles.

Large majority? ok. And it wouldn't be because of poll numbers, it would be for war crimes.

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

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 12:40 AM
Guess Im not the only one with this idea

Now it's George W. Bush's turn to take a drubbing. The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds that only 37 percent of Americans think he's doing a good job, a record low for him and a dangerous drop below the historical benchmark of 40 percent.

A national recall election would be interesting don't you think? But I doubt its possible, I think Jimmy Carters worse poll number was 24%, but that was before the internet.

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by negativenihil

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

Wrong. Impeachment and removal are two entirely different things, and neither one requires a "conviction" for a crime. All impeachment is is an official finding, supported by a majority of the House of Representatives, that the official in question could legitimately be charged with a crime. If it is felt that the official could legitimately be charged with an actual crime on the books in the US, then impeachment proceedings can be initiated. If a majority of the House so votes, then the official is "impeached." That sets the stage for the next potential step-- removal from office.

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

Wrong again-- there was no Senate "trial," nor can there be. The Senate is empowered, if they so choose, to propose and vote on the removal from office of an official that has already been impeached by the House. Again, the only issue is whether the official could legitimately be charged with a crime. It's not within the Senate's powers to actually charge the official or to have a trial-- ALL they can do is to remove the official from office so that s/he can then, potentially, actually be charged. They chose not to do so with Clinton. Had they chosen to pursue it, and had he actually been removed from office, then he might have actually been tried for his crime (perjury) in a court of law. Clinton was not "cleared" of anything, and as a matter of fact, his law license was revoked after he left office, as is standard with lawyers who commit perjury, but even that action couldn't be taken until after he left office.

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.

The point is that Bush hasn't, at least to anyone's knowledge, actually committed any crimes. Certainly much of what he has done might figuratively be called a "crime" as in "a crime against humanity," but in order for him to even face impeachment proceedings, there would have to be evidence of him having committed an actual, actionable, currently defined by US law CRIME, and there's simply no evidence that he has done so. No crime-- no impeachment, much though he might arguably deserve it.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in