That if a President is doing such a terrible job like the one we have now. that deligates from all the states can vote. and call for another general election. to replace .are keep the president.
2006-10-11 05:39:14 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The written constitution of a country is a living document and it should indeed be evolutionary and revolutionary!
So, changes as may be necessary cannot be and should not be ruled out!
2006-10-11 05:43:53 · answer #1 · answered by Sami V 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. There's a reason why this wasn't included by the framers. Recall elections lead to instability. In European countries where a vote of no confidence can lead to a recall governments change with the tides and are generally no more or less effective than ours.
Additionally, our federal system of government (where power is divided between a national and many regional governments) relies on regularly scheduled elections in order to keep things running.
Having a random election whenever some people don't like the man in office rarely turns things around, is incredibly costly, and just is not needed. Four years pass soon enough and in our current state it would always be possible to find enough people willing to recall a president no matter what kind of job he's doing.
Think about this: Since the 1920's the only presidents who probably never suffered an approval rating below 50% for at least one lengthy period of time were probably Eisenhower, Kennedy, and maybe Reagan. Nixon and Carter would almost certainly have been recalled and Johnson and Clinton would have come close.
2006-10-11 12:55:32 · answer #2 · answered by Rooster Teacher 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's what the process of impeachment is for. Impeachment is only the first step, a legislative vote for removal comes second. You can indict with impeachment, and not remove them from the Presidency, a la Clinton. Two-part process. Amendments to the Constitution are hard to come by, and with good reason. But there is no need for an amendment in this area, we already have means for removal.
2006-10-11 12:57:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually there IS a little known way the states can require the Congress to bring articles of impeachment. But THAT is defective since the hand picked VP is usually a collaborator, if not impeached at the same time. We have NO president, but rather an illegally installed dictator. Work for HONEST elections so that other needed reforms can be possible.
2006-10-11 12:46:26 · answer #4 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, and it's unfortunate that we have a bumbling coward in office, and I regret voting for him twice, but it's best to ride out the storm, let him go down in history as a failure like Johnson, Carter, and Clinton... with a little luck we'll have some one worth voting for in 2008.
2006-10-11 12:44:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Constutition provides for the problem of having a bad chief excutive, and it is called impeachment.
2006-10-11 13:05:55 · answer #6 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What constitution? Don't you know Bush overturned the constitution with the Patriot Act? What you're talking about is impeachment and you can't impeach an emperor.
2006-10-11 12:49:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
See the problem is we have three parts of government controlled by one group of people. It is Congress's job to fight with the President not lick his boots.
2006-10-11 12:43:32 · answer #8 · answered by tcmoosey 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We have provisions in the Constitution now. But it still requires evidence and there has been none with this President. However we were successful with Clinton.
2006-10-11 12:43:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, kings can only be deposed via revolution. Remember the French Revolution? King Louis XVI lost his head over it (literally)!
2006-10-11 13:16:57 · answer #10 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋