We need a change and we need it NOW.
2006-08-10 04:48:37 · 18 answers · asked by Ha Ha Charade You Are................... 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
What's the procedure for impeachment?
2006-08-10 04:53:46 · update #1
He's going to get us all killed.
2006-08-10 05:23:49 · update #2
I don't think impeachment is the way to go. It is too inefficient and expensive.
In California we had no procedure for it at all, and yet we had a recall of our Governor. Can't we just recall him? I mean, it shouldn't take criminal charges.... we could call it "termination for cause...."
To the post above me, I am a Republican who voted for Bush twice, and my reason for withholding judgment on the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with government support of terrorism.
However, Bush has not been even trying to 'defend our Constitution and laws', in fact if you look at SPP, he has been trying to undermine individual rights in the name of globalism. There is much more to the discussion than Iraq.
2006-08-10 05:23:00 · answer #1 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Impeachment is the best option.
In the Executive branch, only people who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached.
Although treason and bribery are obvious in terms of meanings, the Constitution doesn't say much about what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor."
Impeachment is a 2 step procecss that beings in the House of Representatives where "articles of impeachment" must pass with a majority of the votes. The articles of impeachment are the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."
Then, the Senate tries the person accused. And in the case of the President, the Chief Justice of the U.S. presides over the proceedings. In order to convict, a two-thirds majority of the senators who are present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate can vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Even with a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after they have left office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain benefits of their prior office, for instance, a pension. If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.
2006-08-10 12:04:48 · answer #2 · answered by Logos24 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you call it impeachment. By haing something like two third of the Congress, or three forth of the State Governors can vote him out. Also the Supreme judges can vote out a President, but I don't remember how many of them it takes to impeach a President. My count would be two Presidents had been impeached in the US history.
Another way is to shoot him down, at least Kennedy got it. I was surprised you guy picked him up again during reelection!!
2006-08-10 11:54:45 · answer #3 · answered by Titan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is no need to get rid of a president dong a good job , these are bad times that you can't blame on 1 single person . That would be taking the easy way out , war is very bad but necessary at this point , watch the news , read a paper , you will realize this isn't all made up , there are very bad people out there and we are not the only country that recognized that and is trying to fix it
2006-08-10 11:55:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unless you live on another planet, I suggest you look at todays news...Aug 10.... another terrorist plot was uncovered. It is in Britain but you can bet your sweet behind that we Americans had alot to do with uncovering it.
The only change you need is an attitude change....Bush's interest in stopping terrorism before getting to the US might just have your sorry butt more than once.
Just be glad you live in a country where you can publicly say we need to get rid of the president and Not have the gestapo at your door. We are given freedom of speech even for the most unintelligent of our citizenry.
2006-08-10 12:03:09 · answer #5 · answered by groomingdiva_pgh 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He can be impeached but there's no legal cause at this point to impeach him. Besides which, the people who would have to do it aren't interested so just suck it up and wait it out.
2006-08-10 11:54:38 · answer #6 · answered by Lex 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Why would you have Pres. Bush impeached? Are you one of those who think he lied about the WMDs? We know Saddam had and used them, he did not provide proof of their destruction as instructed by the U.N., and he did not allow inspections for 4 years. If I missed something, I apologize. Would you please send a link to the proof provided by Saddam that he did comply with the U.N.?
2006-08-10 12:17:59 · answer #7 · answered by TheHumbleOne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, first of all, he has to have done something major illegal. And you have to have proof. Until then, there's really nothing you can do.
So since he hasn't done anything majorally illegal (I haven't read the patriot act) and we don't have proof, then you have to wait another 2 years.
If there's anything you can do in the meantime, i'm not sure what. I'm sure there is, but I don't know what. After all, government employees work FOR us.
2006-08-10 12:03:38 · answer #8 · answered by asterisk_dot_asterisk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, it's called impeachment.
2006-08-10 11:53:10 · answer #9 · answered by munesliver 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
impeachment
2006-08-10 11:52:57 · answer #10 · answered by idontkno 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋