Shouldn't there be a way to oust a politican (not impeachment ) if the majority think it is right to do so?

Question

I know that politicians make the rules and that in the USA there is a rule called Impeachment but that has specific wrongs that need to be met before it can be done and I find no error with that. I do think that after a shorter period of time, every year, the people should be able to either oust the leader or make a serious change in his or her policies without having to wait for the full term to be completed. The politicians make the laws I know but isn't it convenient how they shape things to allow themselves such controls once they are in power.

If a recall is expensive wouldn't it be worth the price to have it anyway?

Answer 1

if this could be done politicians sure would wake up and start representing the people like they should be instead of taking a free ride on us

Answer 2

Well, there is a precedent for that in other forms of government: the vote of no confidence. The reason the US has such long terms for its federal officers (2, 4, and 6 years for Representative, President, and Senator, respectively) is so the President and Senators can (theoretically) afford to take longer-term views without having to compromise due to political pressure from either constituents or party: which should allow them to make correct decisions despite being more politically dangerous. The House of Representatives, with its relatively short term: was designed to be more dynamic, responding more immediately to the desires of the people.
There are reasons for doing things the way we do them, even if they are not readily apparent.

Answer 3

For one thing, there's recall, which is an option in some cases. Also, several politicians have been brought down by lawsuits or investigations, without actual impeachment proceedings (think Tom DeLay). Last but not least, there's the election process. You can thank the good old American electorate for putting the same dirtbags into office year after year.

Answer 4

According to the line in the Declaration of Independence, we not only have a way of outsting bad government, but we have a moral duty to do so.

Colonists in America saw themselves as heirs of a tradition with both theological and political components. They believed that they were spiritually justified, if not compelled, to resist bad government and institute moral government after biblical patterns. They saw themselves as the progeny of previous revolutions. In short, they assumed that the "principles of the Glorious Revolution had been upheld in the colonies also." The Americans looked to many of the heroes enshrined on Geneva’s Reformation wall, Calvinists like William of Nassau, William III, Admiral Coligny, John Knox, and George Buchanan.

The decade before the American Revolution saw the application of God’s covenantal providence to New England extended more generally to all Americans. As Perry Miller argued a generation ago, it was American Protestantism, not "genial Anglicanism" nor "urbane rationalism," that fueled patriotic fires to scorch the distant British government. Some Anglicans went so far as to assume that, "Independency in Religion will naturally produce Republicanism in the State." Edmund Burke confirmed that the most prevalent religion in the northern American colonies was "a refinement on the principle of resistance; it is the dissidence of dissent; and the protestantism of the protestant religion." Burke continued to note that this spirit of liberty seemed to grow best when removed from Anglicanism. Anglicanism is NOT Protestantism.

The Colonies were populated by those fleeing a repressive, paganistic corrupt government. Sound familiar?

Answer 5

You're right... we could theoretically petition and riot but it would be so hard to gain that much support, especially with the people in the US. Most people simply won't care enough to act upon their disagreements and there are others that will have support for that person in office... think of it this way, in school you have a class and every test and every assignment is graded on a curve. This means that if every student just answers one question and leaves the others blank then everyone in the class receives an A+... of course, this will never occur because someone will fk it up for you...

Answer 6

Some states have a recall procedure now, but it seldom works. Anyway, if people would take more care in voting, and more would vote in the elections, I would bet there would be less discontent.

Barring misconduct, if someone gets elected, they would normally be entitled to serve the term of office. If they do a bad job, or the voters don't approve, vote them out at the next election.

Answer 7

Some, if not all states have the right to recall a politician for certain reasons. A petition is usually the way to get it started

Answer 8

Which group are you talking about. Most terms last between 2-6 years. By the time we got anything going to remove them, it be time to vote anyway. The answer is to look at who you are voting for, not just a party ot name.

Answer 9

We do have the means for more immediate change, the recall. Best to get it right the first time and VOTE the better candidate in the first time.

Answer 10

I think it already wastes too much time to vote for them to begin with. If we had to do it every year it would be ridiculous. I think we need to prevent the bad ones instead of worring about them later on. More people need to get off their *** get informed and go out and vote.