Guest Ted Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 On Aug 6, 8:21 pm, John Pastore <jfpast...@peoplepc.com> wrote: > Removing a Failed President > by Joel S. Hirschhorn / August 6th, 2007 > > We no longer can trust Congress to impeach and remove a terrible president. > The Washington Post has published an op-ed by Robert Dallek that proposes a > constitutional amendment to allow "ouster by the people" for removing a > president other than by impeachment or because of incapacity. Considering > the dismal performance of George W. Bush and his administration and the > difficulty in obtaining impeachment, this is a fine idea. > > Here are the main features of the amendment: The recall procedure would > begin by obtaining a 60 percent vote in the Senate and House. Public > pressure on Congress could help it shift decisionmaking to the electorate. > Congressional support would initiate a national referendum that would be > open to all eligible voters in state elections. Clearly, it should be done > fairly quickly. The ballot would simply offer the choice of voting "yes" or > "no" to the option of removing the president and vice president from office > immediately. If the majority votes in favor of removal, then the Speaker of > the House would become president and choose a vice president who would have > to be confirmed by majorities in the House and Senate. > > These are solid ideas that would add a much needed dose of direct democracy > that would hold presidencies more accountable to Congress and the general > public than any constitutional mechanism now available. > > There must be limits in a functional and fair representative democracy to > what a president can do. Bush has more than demonstrated that the > presidency > has become much too powerful, able to undermine our Constitution and the > rule of law, sell out our national sovereignty, put us in incredible debt, > waste American lives, and walk all over Congress. > > There are 18 states that have a recall process for sitting governors. So > this notion is not absurd. Interestingly, in only two cases have governors > been removed through citizen action: In North Dakota in 1921, and more > recently in California in 2003. Recall works, but has not been used > frivolously. > > As Dallek correctly concluded: "The nation should be able to remove by an > orderly constitutional process any president with an unyielding commitment > to failed policies and an inability to renew the country's hope." Amen. > > The removal process has the distinct advantage of not immobilizing Congress > when it pursues impeachment. More important, removing a president through a > national referendum that involves many millions of citizens, rather than > simply through members of Congress, makes incredible sense. If we the > people > really are sovereign, then we should have the constitutional right to > remove > a president. > > Sadly, Dallek did not also support using a mechanism already in our > Constitution to propose amendments that are unlikely to come from Congress. > Our Founders placed in Article V the option of having a national convention > for the purpose of proposing amendments. Only one specific requirement is > given and that has been met, but Congress has refused to call an Article V > convention, though more than two-thirds of state legislatures have asked > for > one and even though Article V says that it "shall" do so. > > If Congress has refused to honor Article V and give we the people what we > have a constitutional right to - an amendment convention operating outside > the control of Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court - then it > seems unlikely to propose a new amendment that would give the nation a > national referendum to remove a president and vice-president. Each of the > two major parties will fear that someone of their party could be removed > from office and that a Speaker from the other party might become president. > > Pressure could be mounted now on Congress to obtain the new amendment for > removing a president or it could be mounted on Congress to obey the current > Constitution and give us an Article V convention. Choosing the second > option > has the huge advantage that by obtaining the nation's first Article V > convention we would also have the opportunity to consider other sensible > amendments. Fears of an Article V convention have been nurtured over the > decades by groups now wielding power over Congress through lobbying and > campaign contributions. Such fears are nonsense. Whatever an Article V > convention proposes must be ratified in exactly the same way that all > proposals from Congress are ratified. > > The second point, therefore, in favor of working in favor of an Article V > convention is that Congress has also largely failed we the people. Making > it > obey Article V and give the nation an alternative means of national > discussion of possible constitutional amendments that a corrupt Congress > will never propose makes all the sense in the world. For example, there is > serious attention being given to the idea of electing Supreme Court > Justices, rather than continue allowing political considerations to choose > them. But neither major party would want to lose its power to shape the > court, so that amendment will not be proposed by Congress. > > Friends of the Article V Convention has the sole mission of obtaining the > nation's first convention and will not support any specific amendment. But > every group that now advocates some type of political or government reform > that could be obtained through a constitutional amendment should join and > support this umbrella group. > > Joel S. Hirschhorn has a new book, Delusional Democracy: Fixing the > Republic > Without Overthrowing the Government, which supports constitutional > conventions and other peaceful ways to restore American democracy. To join > the pro-convention effort or discuss issues write the author: > artic...@gmail.com. Read other articles by Joel, or visit Joel's website. http://www.numbersusa.com/ ted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jerry Okamura Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 An absolutely lousy idea. How is the process going to work? Who decides to put it to the vote of the people? Picture this scenario. The President represents one pary. The Congress is controlled by the other party. The party in control of Congress, can and probably will try to get a President who represents the other party, out of office, anyway they can. Think the impeachment of Clinton. Think of those who are talking about impeaching Bush. "Ted" <tedorn44@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1186487444.295268.138500@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 6, 8:21 pm, John Pastore <jfpast...@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> Removing a Failed President >> by Joel S. Hirschhorn / August 6th, 2007 >> >> We no longer can trust Congress to impeach and remove a terrible >> president. >> The Washington Post has published an op-ed by Robert Dallek that proposes >> a >> constitutional amendment to allow "ouster by the people" for removing a >> president other than by impeachment or because of incapacity. Considering >> the dismal performance of George W. Bush and his administration and the >> difficulty in obtaining impeachment, this is a fine idea. >> >> Here are the main features of the amendment: The recall procedure would >> begin by obtaining a 60 percent vote in the Senate and House. Public >> pressure on Congress could help it shift decisionmaking to the >> electorate. >> Congressional support would initiate a national referendum that would be >> open to all eligible voters in state elections. Clearly, it should be >> done >> fairly quickly. The ballot would simply offer the choice of voting "yes" >> or >> "no" to the option of removing the president and vice president from >> office >> immediately. If the majority votes in favor of removal, then the Speaker >> of >> the House would become president and choose a vice president who would >> have >> to be confirmed by majorities in the House and Senate. >> >> These are solid ideas that would add a much needed dose of direct >> democracy >> that would hold presidencies more accountable to Congress and the general >> public than any constitutional mechanism now available. >> >> There must be limits in a functional and fair representative democracy to >> what a president can do. Bush has more than demonstrated that the >> presidency >> has become much too powerful, able to undermine our Constitution and the >> rule of law, sell out our national sovereignty, put us in incredible >> debt, >> waste American lives, and walk all over Congress. >> >> There are 18 states that have a recall process for sitting governors. So >> this notion is not absurd. Interestingly, in only two cases have >> governors >> been removed through citizen action: In North Dakota in 1921, and more >> recently in California in 2003. Recall works, but has not been used >> frivolously. >> >> As Dallek correctly concluded: "The nation should be able to remove by an >> orderly constitutional process any president with an unyielding >> commitment >> to failed policies and an inability to renew the country's hope." Amen. >> >> The removal process has the distinct advantage of not immobilizing >> Congress >> when it pursues impeachment. More important, removing a president through >> a >> national referendum that involves many millions of citizens, rather than >> simply through members of Congress, makes incredible sense. If we the >> people >> really are sovereign, then we should have the constitutional right to >> remove >> a president. >> >> Sadly, Dallek did not also support using a mechanism already in our >> Constitution to propose amendments that are unlikely to come from >> Congress. >> Our Founders placed in Article V the option of having a national >> convention >> for the purpose of proposing amendments. Only one specific requirement is >> given and that has been met, but Congress has refused to call an Article >> V >> convention, though more than two-thirds of state legislatures have asked >> for >> one and even though Article V says that it "shall" do so. >> >> If Congress has refused to honor Article V and give we the people what we >> have a constitutional right to - an amendment convention operating >> outside >> the control of Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court - then it >> seems unlikely to propose a new amendment that would give the nation a >> national referendum to remove a president and vice-president. Each of the >> two major parties will fear that someone of their party could be removed >> from office and that a Speaker from the other party might become >> president. >> >> Pressure could be mounted now on Congress to obtain the new amendment for >> removing a president or it could be mounted on Congress to obey the >> current >> Constitution and give us an Article V convention. Choosing the second >> option >> has the huge advantage that by obtaining the nation's first Article V >> convention we would also have the opportunity to consider other sensible >> amendments. Fears of an Article V convention have been nurtured over the >> decades by groups now wielding power over Congress through lobbying and >> campaign contributions. Such fears are nonsense. Whatever an Article V >> convention proposes must be ratified in exactly the same way that all >> proposals from Congress are ratified. >> >> The second point, therefore, in favor of working in favor of an Article V >> convention is that Congress has also largely failed we the people. Making >> it >> obey Article V and give the nation an alternative means of national >> discussion of possible constitutional amendments that a corrupt Congress >> will never propose makes all the sense in the world. For example, there >> is >> serious attention being given to the idea of electing Supreme Court >> Justices, rather than continue allowing political considerations to >> choose >> them. But neither major party would want to lose its power to shape the >> court, so that amendment will not be proposed by Congress. >> >> Friends of the Article V Convention has the sole mission of obtaining the >> nation's first convention and will not support any specific amendment. >> But >> every group that now advocates some type of political or government >> reform >> that could be obtained through a constitutional amendment should join and >> support this umbrella group. >> >> Joel S. Hirschhorn has a new book, Delusional Democracy: Fixing the >> Republic >> Without Overthrowing the Government, which supports constitutional >> conventions and other peaceful ways to restore American democracy. To >> join >> the pro-convention effort or discuss issues write the author: >> artic...@gmail.com. Read other articles by Joel, or visit Joel's website. > > http://www.numbersusa.com/ > > ted > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.