If the President falls below a 40% approval rating, should this be grounds for impeachment?

Question

I feel like the President should be held accountable, if the public doesn't approve of his actions. Saying one thing in his campaign, and doing another is telling a lie. What about lie detector test? Shouldn't some form of forcing him to do what he says he will do be applied to his position? Would it be different than any employee taking a drug test? How much should he be allowed to get away with without concrete proof he is telling the truth? Isn't there too much hid from the public in the name of national security? Shouldn't the public have a right to make sure he isn't telling us lies? The current watch dog system, does it really work?

Would a moron wonder where the weapons of mass destruction really are? I understand how our governmental process works, and I understand how surveys work. Answer the question without making snotty remarks. I believe he should be held accountable when no one approves of his actions, thats all. If you are intelligent enough to answer this question then do so, but leave out the name calling, children!!

As far as the boot is concerned; you my friend are living in a fantasy. If someone you knew had died in 9/11, would you feel this way? NO I DON'T think so. You are right up there with the people that think the moon shot was a fake!!

Answer 1

Absolutely! I say yes on all counts! If the Democrats regain control of Congress, mainly the Senate, in next month's mid-term elections, Bush's days in the White House is numbered! And I can't wait for the wheels of impeachment start moving forward! Then I want to see Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Gonzales get the same treatment as well! LOL!!!!!!!! :)

Answer 2

they only pay attention to their exhibits so they'd now not see it. yet it quite is your confirmation: "probable Bush’s call only isn't airborne dirt and dust any further. The Washington positioned up/ABC pollrequested respondents to fee Bush’s performance for the 1st time once you communicate that December 2008, whilst maximum useful 33 proportion rated it certainly and sixty six proportion rated it negatively. What the pollster stumbled on is that at latest 40 seven proportion approve and 50 % disapprove of Bush’s overall performance. That approval quantity is precisely comparable to Barack Obama’s in probable the main contemporary positioned up/ABC poll." i've got a $one hundred invoice that pronounces a 300 and sixty 5 days from now Bush could have a stronger score than Obama.

Answer 3

Absolutely not.

Despite the Clinton fiasco, the reality is that impeachment of a president is, Constitutionally speaking, a rare and difficult thing. This is by design. Every impeachment proceeding launched by the House and pursued in the Senate is a potential Constitutional crisis. In each of these the US risks the Scylla and Charybdis of either a disruption of the principle of checks and balances by Legislative tyranny and marginalization of the Executive, or, much worse, the danger that a president may elect to resist removal by Congress and in effect arrogate to himself unlimited executive power. Constitutional crises are dangerous and should be avoided where possible. Clinton himself should never have been impeached, for example--not because his actions weren't unlawful, but because impeachment cannot and should not be used as a transparently partisan political ruse (after all, if lying under oath were really an impeachment offense, how many presidents would be removed--the current president has lied more publicly and with more dire consequences for the country, and has broken numerous laws but has not been impeached)?

Certainly unpopularity is an issue for the electorate to deal with in the next regular election. But poor performance in the polls (themselves a hardly scientific information-gathering tool of variously affiliated entities, whose impartiality would be drastically curtailed if their results were given such broad power) can hardly be equated with high crimes and misdemeanors.

Answer 4

We don't need a drop in approval ratings to impeach him and his cronies. They're sweating bullets now because if Democrats get in Congress in November, they may start impeachment proceedings. There is enough evidence against them all without approval ratings.

Answer 5

i dont understand how you would impeach a president, or anyone, for an approval rating of 40% since not everyone is asked, just a small group. people say what they hope to do in their campaigns, sometimes it isnt able to occur. taking a drug test is so an employer can see your reliability. its to make sure nothing will interfer with your work. the president has to make our country secure at all costs and do what HE feels is best for the country...

Answer 6

Everything the current administration has done has been a lie. Alot of people will disagree but i dont understand why it is so hard to believe. There does not have to be conspiracy theories or propaganda. Man has been plotting murder against his fellow man for monetary gain since the beginning of time and that is a fact. I think not only bush needs to be impeached but anyone he has appointed as they are working for his cause. Bush and his associates blew up the towers. When are we going to take a stand to take this tyrant and his followers out of power?

Answer 7

Popularity has NOTHING to do with impeachment. His ratings could go down to zero, with just himself and Barney (his dog), and that wouldn't be grounds for impeachment, though it would be grounds to invoke the "incapacity" clause of the Constitution (incapable of governing) and have Congress go to him and tell him to resign for the good of the country.

Impeachment is just an indictment. He has to be tried and found guilty before he can be removed from office. The grounds of impeachment are "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Bush is clearly guilty of numerous crimes--among them treason, fraud, un-Constitutionality--and should have been removed from office years ago, but for the fact that the Republicans control the government and none of them has the guts to impeach their own president. The man should have been given a psychological test, a brain scan, and a lie detector test, and he should have been challenged long before now, but like all weak men, he has only yes men in his administration and no one will tell the emperor he's naked.

Does the watch-dog system work? If it was used as intended, I think it would work. It was supposed to be that there never would be a one-party state as we have now, with a separate and equal powers in the judiciary and congress, and a free press. But our press is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America, just as the government is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate interests, and Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of greed and power (and corporate interests), so what we have is a corporate oligarchy, something like a banana republic.

Answer 8

No

In other countries it could be grounds for a new election, but not in the US, in the US we keep an unpopular and ineffective President for up to 3 years.

Impeachment is a criminal or misconduct allegation, quite a serious matter. No one has yet to uncover any such information on Bush, like him or not his hand was never caught in the cookie jar.

Answer 9

If the president screws above 40% of the female population and smokes cigars while boasting about it in the oval office, should this be grounds for impeachment?

Answer 10

I don't know about Impeachment, but i do think it should be taken in front of some review broad. And he should answer some questions. Maybe even like they did in Ca. have another election before it is due.