Are their laws about whether the president can use drugs. Say a president ends up having a serious drug addiction while in office, is that cause for empeachment...and how can they prove it?
2006-09-15 14:52:38 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Generally the President of the State is above law, but going through by your proposition, the law makers and law think-tanks should amend the Constitution to include this.
2006-09-17 04:10:55 · answer #1 · answered by Seagull 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the Secret Service was sneaking a certain someone into the oval office, during a prior term of Office, with no word to anyone about it. The thinking being that it is better for the Country not to know these things. Do you actually think that they would drug test any one in the White house, much less the President. And then tell the Public, and the World?
2006-09-15 22:05:59 · answer #2 · answered by LightintheDarkness 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would have to have been documented incidents which because they were brought to the floor of the senate and an investigation carried out warranted sufficient grounds to require the President to submit to urinalysis or follicle testing.
Let's say the President stumbles in an obvious manner or appears to be intoxicated where he can be observed, then there is a chance it will brought to someone's attention. If there were credible witnesses to the fact it might lead to some pretty uncomfortable situations for him.
2006-09-15 22:04:33 · answer #3 · answered by synchronicity915 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um... I don't think so. The president is like 'the boss' so only if he starts acting weird do they do it. Other than that... i suppose not.
Course I don't mind if Bush gets empeached, now THAT'S something!!
2006-09-15 21:55:09 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Apparently Bush is a dope-head. Have you seen his reactions to things and heard the stuff he says lately? What about that great summit meeting when he was talking with British Prime Minister Tony Blair? Good times...
2006-09-15 22:02:39 · answer #5 · answered by sportyblush 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know but if they don;t they should. We can't have a president during a war or at any time on drugs. Especially when they are against the law.
2006-09-15 21:54:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Kennedy allegedly had drug addiction.
The President probably undergoes physicals often.
2006-09-15 22:01:21 · answer #7 · answered by Paul 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Y'all are all pot heads, who attribute your own behavior to the president, who is doing a great job, just because of your own twisted political views.
Bush is head of the executive branch of government, and so who outranks him to test him? No one.
Try a good drug clinic, then you won't be making up so much weird stuff.
2006-09-15 22:14:44 · answer #8 · answered by retiredslashescaped1 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If that is the case, the entire white house staff/cabin should be tested (drug, alcohol, etc.).
But if this was a known problem (before election) should it matter later????
2006-09-15 22:31:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but Ted Kennedy needs to take a sobriety test before he drives to the Senate each day. That f'n idiot is going to kill someone else one of these days.
2006-09-15 22:09:13 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋