Bush and Cheney Impeachment round table.
- Thread starter D_N Flay Table
- Start date
Dave NoCal
Superior Member
Uh-huh. Bill Moyers.
There's something that happens to some of these guys as they get to a certain age; they turn into Ramsey Clark. Or, even worse, Helen Thomas.
There's something that happens to some of these guys as they get to a certain age; they turn into Ramsey Clark. Or, even worse, Helen Thomas.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
Oncamale28
Sexy Member
JustAsking
Sexy Member
That is not such an outrageous thought. Parliamentary governments have "no confidence" referendums in the middle of their prime minister terms and boot the bums out if they don't like them.
SpeedoGuy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 4,166
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 41
- Points
- 258
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Even though I dislike GWB and the pack of sycophants that advise him intensely I'm generally not in favor of recalls. Let GWB finish out his term and skulk away in disgrace. Why? Unless the subjects of the recall have been convicted of serious crimes or clear dereliction of duty, routine elections are the best way for voters to express disatisfaction with an officeholder or party. Political unpopularity, in my opinion, is not enough to warrant a recall. I fear that interrupting and distracting a leader's tour in office with a mid-term recall can set a bad precedent....just like how the Independent Counsel statute has been abused.
I'm bolding part of what you said:
I'd have agreed with you in the past, but it's clear that the present administration is not only (1) obstructing the investigations that could lead to those convictions; but also (2) obstructing "routine" elections by placing litmus-tested political allies in the positions of the federal attorneys whose job it is to prosecute election violations like voter intimidation, caging, etc.
Given that double-whammy, I support impeachment and conviction, although I'm pessimistic about the likelihood of finding 18 Republicans willing to place the Constitution above their party.
I'd have agreed with you in the past, but it's clear that the present administration is not only (1) obstructing the investigations that could lead to those convictions; but also (2) obstructing "routine" elections by placing litmus-tested political allies in the positions of the federal attorneys whose job it is to prosecute election violations like voter intimidation, caging, etc.
Given that double-whammy, I support impeachment and conviction, although I'm pessimistic about the likelihood of finding 18 Republicans willing to place the Constitution above their party.
SpeedoGuy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 4,166
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 41
- Points
- 258
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I hear ya, mindseye, and it pains me to be in a position where I might be perceived as defending the nefarious asshats in the White House. I think you know I'm not. Its the very functioning of our system itself I remain worried about. That's especially true when it comes to ethical, non-partisan electoral oversight, as you mentioned. The illegitimate influences that settled the last two presidential elections are the type of abuses in voting rights that might, just might, ever tempt me to suggest alternative means to setting matters right.
Principessa
Expert Member
dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
I can't be sure about all Parliamentary Democracies but that's not the case in the UK and, I assume most nations using the 'Westminster' system.
While calls for a 'vote of no confidence' either in a PM or other minister are 'relatively' common an actual no confidence vote in a Government is unusual. For a Government to be ousted by one is practically unheard of - there have been only four British Prime Ministers forced to resign after losing such votes, ever; the first (and the first ever such vote) being Lord North in 1782, the last being James Callaghan in 1979.
In the Westminster System if a vote of no confidence is tabled the Government may (and often do) respond with a vote of confidence, this will take precedence and negate any vote of no confidence.
There is also the recall election process, which unlike a no confidence motion does involve the electorate. I believe the procedure still exists in about 18 US states (North Dakata recalling Lynne Frazier in 1921 and Calfornina recalling Governor Gray Davis in 2003) as well as some Canadian provinces (since 1995) and in Venezuela - failure to recall Chavez in 2004.
Personally, I think we should re-introduce the ancient Athenian procedure of Ostracism.
In our Westminster system of government it is up to the ruling party, popular or not, to call for referendums. In N.P. they would never do one in order to remove an unpopular elected official. The prime minister could force the resignation of such an official instead, or if the whole party is unpopular they could call an early general election. However the rulers of N.P. like power too much and prefer to stay in office for the full 5 year term allowed.
Within the political parties themselves leadership challenges can occur if other individuals feel that they should lead the party and the party members can vote on this issue. Thus Margaret Thatcher found herself booted out of office by her own political party in 1990 via this mechanism when that party became tired of her leadership.
That you believe it is "evident" is more than sufficient to discredit you altogether.
Similar threads
