We don't have to wait for the election to have Bush replaced. So why not do it?

Question

I'm a californian who had Grey Davis removed during his term. It has become clear to me that we as Americans need to do something drastic if we are going to repair the country. Not just internally but also to mend ties with our allies. We need someone like FDR to make the appropriate changes. What do you think? why not have him replaced now?

Answer 1

although hes a terrible president, first the house has to impeach him by a majority vote, then you need to have something like 2/3s of the senate agree and the whole thing has to be overseen by the chief justice of the supream court. in a republican, or democrat for that matter, controled legislative branch its just not going to happen. that and because of miseducation and simple disinterest in politics, theres actually a pretty small percentage of americans that really care what george does or doesnt do. i was reading somewhere that 53% of americans still believe that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11 although weve proven that he had absolutly nothing to do with it

Answer 2

Just because Bush doesn't know or respect our Constitution doesn't mean that the rest of us should disregard it too. Where in the Constitution do you come up with this scheme to get Bush out like Davis was turned out in California?

Please don't tell us you think that Davis was routed per anything in the *U.S.* Constitution. Californians used a STATE law from the reform era (early 1900s) that was put in place to weaken corporate influence. There is no such provision in Federal law.

Answer 3

In November when Democrats gain control of the Senate you will see impeachment start. The investigations by Congress will be greater than Nixon and Clinton added. We will gain Senate control.
We are the majority. In 2000 Gore got 50,996,116 votes. Bush only got 50,456,169. In Florida the Republican cheating won that State. Of Course we all know Jeb helped GW. In 2000 in Ohio Gore got 2,117,741 votes and 114,482 went to Nader. Bush only got 2,294,167 votes. Add Naders votes to Democrats and you can see we are the majority in Ohio.

Answer 4

Why waste political capital on a pathetic excuse for a President, when in two years he will never be able to destroy the nation again.

Besides, if we suceed in getting a guilty verdict via impeachment (a loooong shot) Dick would only replace him.

Answer 5

It would be a lengthy procedure to get the President out of office whom every other person thinks is doing so well. By the time you got to the point where you could, the 2008 election is already up and running. He won't ever be able to be president again.

Although, it all has to do with the gov't and nothing to do with who the president is.

Answer 6

Yup, another Democrat opening his mouth when he should shut up and listen, (I didn't mean it the way it sounded, but it sure looked good) and you wasn't happy when ol Swartzie Boy got in aether I bet. Bush is most likely the best guy for the job, Ask yourself are you working and if not get off your butt? Most of us have got what we want and those that don't, just bellyache.

Answer 7

Because he really isn't that bad of a President, and you know it.

A President has never been removed from office. About two years before re-election, I think impeachment has been suggested for every president there was.

Talk about it all you want. Unless he commits a REAL crime (not a make-believe crime like you guys say he committed), he, nor any other Presidnet will ever be removed from office.

Answer 8

Suck it up. You lost. Bush is President. Deal with it.

As far as your recall option goes, that is piss poor policy. You made the mistake of electing Davis so you should be stuck with him and the consequences of your poor voting choices.

Answer 9

I think the rules are different for the presidency... Perhaps there is a way to do it but it will be very tricky...

Answer 10

DICK CHENEY WOULD REPLACE HIM...thats why. You think Bush is a problem, be glad the vice pres isn't in command.