Throw Bush Out Now! Call for a National Recall Election in 2006!

[radio4progressives]

In another discussion thread posted last night, someone raised the notion of holding a Recall Election for the White House, and the more I think about this idea, the more it makes sense to me.

Not a week goes by when King George hasn't been caught doing something so outrageous as to call for his impeachment, and the chorus is growing louder and stronger. The list of crimes will not be enumerated here, it's all been thoroughly delineated and hashed out.

Essentially, I think it's safe to say we have tried and prosecuted George W. Bush & Co., and we the jury have deliberated and do find all these evil bastards, Guilty as Charged.

We all thirst for Impeachment, but these proceedings are not likely to occur in this Congress (if at all) until 2007 and by then people will be gearing up for 2008 presidential election. So, it no longer makes sense to place hope that an impeachement proceeding will result in his immediate removal - it just won't.

But i do think that "We the People" might try something totally different.

Think out of the box.

Take the matter out of the hands of Congress, and into the hands of "We the People, by demanding Special Recall Elections! Just in the same way we did here in California, which i opposed at the time..

(but i got to vote my opposition!)

I just can't imagine another Three Years with these dangerous thugs and tyrants in the white house.

The world simply cannot wait much longer.

So, what I'm asking for folks to do, is to think about this. To chew on it for a while (but not too long) and then imagine a world without the Bush Crime Family at the helm, sooner rather than later.

People said it couldn't be done in California (it had been done over a century ago, but not in modern times) and people scoffed at the very idea, and they said "no way" and enumerated all the reasons why it just couldn't or shouldn't be done. Many people (like me) were opposed to the notion of holding a Special Recall Election.

But it did occur. The People had their say, and despite the fact that the power of the State Government was in the full control of Gray Davis and the Democratic party, the Recall Elections occured, and the Governor was voted out of office.. We got stuck with aahhnuld (but he'll be out of here in the next election).

So don't think about how impossible this would be. Instead, think of the benefit of holding recall elections during mid terms elections, 2006 instead of 2008.

It will lessen the pressure of our people in Congress, due to all these other matters at hand and their own runs for re-election they'll be too occupied with. I'm not arguing against investigation and impeachment hearings, i think those could go forward as they should. But in the meantime, we the people, can do our thing, there's nothing in the law that I'm aware of that says it can't be done.

The other reason why I think we can do this is because I think the nation is finally against Bush, i think the polls a month ago were roughly accurate. And with this domestic Spying issue at hand now, i think it's a really good time to do something sort of revolutionary for this country, i think we should do it.

Let's take this country, our nation, on the road to democracy!

What do you think?

[bullimiami]

1. the national recall election is the house in 2006.

take the house back and the hearings will start almost immediately.

of course we have to overcome liebold and the crooked elections fairy. fat chance.

[Trevelyan]

76. Go to BradBlog. Many States are getting rid of Diebold

Boxer has a petition for a fair voting amendment with Hillary whom I would never vote for but I trust Boxer.

[...of J.Temperance]

2. Unfortunately

You can't have a recall election for whoever is holding the office of President. The recall election would have been last November.

[radio4progressives]

4. Where is that law cited? n/t

[ISUGRADIA]

5. The US Constitution

[Yupster]

9. Let's stand up for the Constitution

by demanding an unconstitutional recall presidential election.

Only then will democracy be safe.

[...of J.Temperance]

11. 'Um...*scratches head*

:shrug: I don't think that's a good idea somehow.

[ISUGRADIA]

Recall elections for President and Members of Congress

keep being brought up on DU. There's no constitutional provision for this.

But I am sure these threads will keep poping up over and over.

[AntiCoup2K4]

55. But isn't the Constitution just "a goddamned piece of paper"??

That's what Chimpy believes. Let's use it against him.

Shit, if we actually went by the Constitution, he wouldn't be in the White House anyway, since nowhere in the Constitution does the Supreme Court appoint presidents.

[radio4progressives]

56. Exactly...

:applause:

[...of J.Temperance]

57. Is it a full moon tonight? :)

Huh?

[radio4progressives]

65. it should be! n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

68. Hold on...I'm going to check...

I'll be back in a moment...

[radio4progressives]

16. I know, but which article? which clause?

:shrug:

[ISUGRADIA]

18. There is no article which allows for recall

for president or any other elected official

[MadisonProgressive]

22. Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

[radio4progressives]

31. Right...

impeachment alone is not enough in the case of Congress proceeding with removal.

However, a peoples movement is different.

and that does not say, the people cannot hold a recall election

[...of J.Temperance]

37. But the Constitution forbids it

The people cannot hold a recall election, because the Constitution doesn't allow for that.

[tx_dem41]

39. Ahem....

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[...of J.Temperance]

41. Don't

Do that, you'll hurt yourself...and I won't like that :cry:

[Yupster]

50. I guess the people could certainly hold a recall election

They could do it on the new American Idol show if they want for 80 cents a call.

It wouldn't have any Constitutional standing though.

[renaissanceguy]

105. Unfortunately, I think you're right...

as much as I would like to see it happen.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/472476

[Bacchus39]

150. yep, you got it

n/t

[Burning Water]

23. There isn't a clause

permitting recall elections; hence, no recall elections.

[Tom Joad]

34. What if millions took to the streets demanding real change?

What if we just drove them out of office (without waiting for Congress to act).
Kings and dictators and politicians have been driven from office through massive protest before. We can make it happen here.

[Trevelyan]

77. Please Sign Rep. Conyers' Letter to Begin Impeachment Inquiry

(The Constitution can be amended with Amendments.)

http://www.impeachpac.org/
http://www.conyersblog.us/

TELL CONGRESS TO IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH
http://democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/65

http://www.johnconyers.com/ - Conyers' Action Items
Congressman Conyers:
"Join me, below, in sending the:

Letter Advising the President of Censure

and

Steps to Begin Special Committee Investigation

Dear Mr. President:

We are brave, proud, patriotic citizens of the United States. We love our country and are writing to express our profound disappointment with you and your administration for your conduct surrounding the Iraq War, the collection and use of intelligence, and your disrespect for the laws of
this great nation..."

Sign already. Rep. Conyers has had this letter for several days and only 8,000 signatures - he got over 500,000 sigs for Downing Street Memos - Let everyone know that Conyers is specifically asking for our help in this!!!

See also on Conyers' site:
The Constitution in Crisis: Censure and Investigate Possible Impeachment
:kick: :nuke: :patriot:

[radio4progressives]

81. thanks for posting that here, i already had done so while back...

:hi:

[Burning Water]

112. Isn't the President

protected by, not only the Secret SErvice, but also the Marines? Wouldn't the authorities put down any riots, which is what you are talking about? Won't the Army move to put down an insurrection?

You go ahead. I'll root from the sidelines.

[Tom Joad]

132. We are not suggesting riots. Please pay attention.

No one said we were to physically remove him.

What if there were a sustained campaign to demand the end of the Bush regime. What if there were strikes/ work stoppages? Congress would be forced to act. bush/cheney would even lose their support in the business community, and indeed that has already began. NO confrontation with the military would be necessary.
The above scenario may be far-fetched, but doing nothing is irresponsible. I do think that people power is necessary.

Sad that some only depend on others to act.

[radio4progressives]

137. The Anti-War Movement - Impeach Movement - Recall Elections Movement

these goals are never accomplished in Congress, without clear evidence what the will of the people ... that takes on many different forms.

the urgency has never been so profound.

This is a a Call for Direct Action: A Call for a Velvet Revolution, for an Orange Revolution - it's a message we have to take to the streets and all of the other direct action forms - telephone calls, faxes, petitions, marches.
sometimes, time honored, non-violent civil disobedience may be necessary.

Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mandel, Cindy Sheehan..

[Silverhair]

122. Millions of others would oppose you. It is called civil war. NT

[radio4progressives]

43. Circular Argument - And I've been in such a Battle before and we Won!

in brief back in 1999,there was a struggle to "take back" our radio network aka "save pacifica movement" - when it was hijacked by Cororatists and Clinton appointees (party functionaries intending to further their goal to dumb down radio programming content)

after hundreds of programming purges, "we the people" got involved and said hell no, this is our radio. we learned who the board of directors were, and why they were there - we demanded their resignations, naturally they had no intentions of leaving, so we decided to hold listener member elections to the local and national boards to replace them.

The By-laws did NOT permit listener member elections - but they did NOT preclude them either.

We eventually rewrote the bylaws during this hard fought struggle, fought in the streets and fought in the courts and we forced the resignations of these corporatists thugs, and replaced them with ELECTED listener member representatives.

This was a real david and goliath battle because the DP dispatched their big guns from Washington and sent them to California to take us on in court.

all we had was a law student who placed a mortgage on her house and we organized fund raisers, we were no match for these thugs.

or maybe i should say, they were no match for us.

Though it truly was hard, it was the will of WE the People that won that struggle. And we had our elections and we now have input into what these radio stations will be doing.

And we can win back our country too.

Fey on the naysayers!

on edit: it should be noted that we organized and held two local board elections before we succeeded on a national level. After the first round of elections, the hijackers left our local station alone and we managed it on a local level...

[tx_dem41]

44. You can "rewrite the bylaws" by amending the Constitution too...

using the process called out in the document. It's a hard process, but it sounds like you have the energy to try it.

Or...you can just keep bashing your head against a wall.

[radio4progressives]

53. Sure...

well, i wouldn't be alone... but i know we can do that...of course.

the arguement being waged right now is circular arguement.

Insisting that there does not exist clause permitting recall elections, does not give evidence to prohibition.

the absence of one citation, cannot correctly be used as the basis for the other.

[Burning Water]

113. That's fine.

I think it is an excellent suggestion. However, these things take time. I don't think there is enough before Bush will leave office because his term has ended.

Still, it can only cause improvements in other areas. Only don't get you hopes up on removing Bush before 2008. Won't happen.

[radio4progressives]

118. if we could remove Cheney....

and i think we should have focused on him at the very beginning..... as soon as the drumbeat for invading Iraq - on the matter of war profiteering, Secret Energy policy meeeitngs, writing legislations, Haliburton no -bids, violations of national security wrt to Valerie Plame, Brewster Jennings... etc

that c/should be done asap... which might or might not, assist with the expedition of impeachment hearings, on Bush.. at the least, prosecution of Cheney will at least aid to minimize violence done to our democracy, and American's well being, and possibly minimize damage to the world community with Cheney arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to a life term in federal penitentury. (yeah right - just sayin' it's possible)

[Burning Water]

117. Not at all circular.

There is no process established to have a recall election. Hence, it can't be done. Now, maybe something else can be done. Or maybe you can get the rules (i.e., the Constitution) changed to have a recall election. BUT AS THINGS NOW STAND you CANNOT have a recall election. What is so hard to understand about that??

Get the rules changed. Start the Constitutional amendment process. I'm pulling for you.

[Silverhair]

120. Comparing a radio station to a POTUS? LOL !!

No comparison at all. Most people, myself included, never heard of your great battle for the glorious revolution in the name of the people. :rofl:

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Silverhair]

139. So you resort of a personal attack?

You are basically calling for a revolution, and you think I am an RW because I won't join your glorious revolution? Neither will the masses. The country is pretty evenly divided and highly polarized. Even is all the lefties took up arms, we would be matched by all the RWs. No one would win. Your idea of a revolution would do far more damage to the country than Bush ever dreamed of.

And I do think it is laughable to compare some victory over radio programming with a station that very few have ever heard of, to removing a POTUS by extra-constitutional means.

[radio4progressives]

143. you seem to misunderstand a couple of things...

I'm calling for a Czechoslovakian style "Velvet Revolution" which is not about "taking up arms".

Far from it.

The Velvet Revolution led by Czechoslovakians Civil Reform leader, Havel occurred in mid November 1989 and finishing about 5 or 6 weeks later at the end of December 1989. It was a bloodless overthrow of an oppressive regime which refused to step down from power during Perestroika.

But please, don't misunderstand, I'm calling for Recall Elections

Sir, we have a government within a government, completely unaccountable to it's citizens, devising and implementing Foreign and Domestic policies in complete secrecy, with free and unfettered access to our national treasury, our personal information, in violation to the Constituion and operating with complete impunity.

That, Sir, means we are being ruled by a totalitarian regime.

Although, it's been understood by a significant number of people in this country at least since 2000, it is now abundantly apparent to a substantial majority of this nation's citizens, that our Official Leaders have not been operating under the laws of this land, and in total disregard to our nations laws and Constitution.

This has significant meaning. No one can pretend that it is otherwise, any longer. The time for the people to respond to this desperate and tragic state of affairs is upon us. If you are unable to see the significance and full meaning of recent events, then I suggest you give the matter a bit more thought and consideration.

Again... Let me be perfectly clear, I'm not calling to "take up arms".

I'm calling for a Special Recall Election .

That is a difference of significant distinction.

On the matter of the "save pacifica movement", that was a struggle to take back a national radio network, not radio programming. The purging of about 350 programmers alerted listeners subscribers that their network had been hijacked by marketers and corporatist with a plan to sell all five network stations along with about 250 affiliates scattered through-out the country at the time. These radio stations are fully funded by the listener subscribers. The board of directors had no inclination to uphold the Pacifica Mission and Statement of Purpose, which was chartered by the stations founder, pacifists Lew Hill, 50 years prior to those takeover events. For us, Pacifica's Mission Statement was very nearly as important as our nation's Constitution, and the 1948/49 United Nation's Charters and Treaties.

Although that was a major struggle, it certainly is small in scale as compared to the matter before us. However, many of the operating principles are similar, to a certain degree. But it would indeed be foolish to imply that the scale of import and magnitude is anything at all in the same ball park as the matter before us today.

Naysayers are ridiculing this notion, because the Constitution does not provide for Special Recall Elections.

What the Naysayers are failing to bear in mind, is that our Constitution is no longer in operation. No thanks to Herr Bushivick and the Washington Elite who enabled this travesty to occur in the first place.

[...of J.Temperance]

8. You can only recall State officials

Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Attorney-General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Mayor, Senator et al. Not EVERY state allows for a recall election though.

It is the law and you cannot recall whoever is the President or Vice-President...the only form of recall would be something like Impeachment...and for that we would need to control Congress and also get some more Senate seats, because even if it passed Congress, it would then go up to the Senate and it takes two thirds of the Senate to vote for an Impeachment.

[radio4progressives]

13. Well Damn it to Hell ! Start a Movement to change the laws then!

A system of governance that ours have been these past five years is completley untenable, it is essentially a totalitarian regime.

These bastards control every single branch of our government, there is not a wit of independence anywhere in sight. And the Corporate Media operates as their mouthpiece.

Waiting for congress to move with impeachment is woefully inadequate! It doesn't even guarantee resignation, unless there are congressional prosecutions and convictions!

Our system of democracy has completely broken down, either we take the matter into our hands or kiss any sense of a democratic and free nation good bye forever!

[ISUGRADIA]

14. Well then start your movement to amend the constitution

It's a bad idea. If we had had such a provision in 1994 Clinton would have likely been removed then,

[radio4progressives]

59. hmm.

That might have been just the thing to have prevented him in implementing NAFTA and GATT. At least he would have thought about it a bit more than rushing in to do do something that people did not support, that actually impacted in a very negative way, peoples lives and livelihoods.

but that's another subject...

[tx_dem41]

63. So you are now seemingly advocating the ouster of a Democratic

president to be replaced by a Republican, of course.

:crazy:

[radio4progressives]

66. no.. i'm not. I was trying to suggest that the notion of a recall

MIGHT have PREVENTED him from implementing those terrible policies.

he would have thought twice, and maybe focused better on the health care issue more intelligently - so that it didn't get obliterated so needlessly.

[...of J.Temperance]

67. Or the Democratic President to be replaced by a resurrected Karl Marx

:scared:

[radio4progressives]

70. There you go, red baiting again... tsk tsk tsk tsk...

Right about now, i'd almost welcome a Karl Marx in place of these fascists bastards.

i'm something of a social libertarian, but not a marxist.

[Trevelyan]

78. Clinton was a Skull and Bones Bilderberger NOT a Dem and neither is Hilary

Look up the Clinton/Bush murders including Mena airbase drug trafficking and Officer Teaky's torture murder for investigating the lies about the Oklahoma bombings, just for starters.

Go to http://www.StopTheLie.com/ about the PNAC and how the left/right paradigm is no longer valid with all the DINOs in Congress and think about it. Labels don't mean anything. Look deeper into Clinton's and Kerry's actions.

A more recent example. I wrote and sent article to Sen. Carl Levin, purported Democrat and Graham telling them I was going to publicize their betrayal of human values every chance I could:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=VJQl1vGD5N&Content=684

==Center for Constitutional Rights Statement on Dangers of Court-Stripping and Graham-Levin Amendment

Most disturbing, Graham-Levin will eliminate the historic right of habeas corpus for anyone held at Guantánamo. Federal courts will be stripped of habeas jurisdiction for the first time in well over a century. By undertaking a major change in the jurisdiction of federal courts, by way of eliminating a right, the origins of which go back to the Magna Carta in 1215, Graham-Levin constitutes a beachhead in what we fear to be a campaign to undermine fundamental rights in the United States and around the world.

The New York Times called the Graham-Levin amendment "a malignant measure" in a critical editorial today, and warned that it "would do grievous harm to the rule that the government cannot just lock you up without showing cause to a court. This fundamental principle of democratic justice must not be watered down so the Bush administration does not have to answer for the illegal detentions of hundreds of men at Guantánamo Bay and other prison camps." The Center for Constitutional Rights stands with all the leading civil and human rights organizations to condemn the Graham-Levin amendment.

[MrBenchley]

109. Put some more tinfoil in your hat

Those mind rays are seeping in....

[Silverhair]

123. For once, I agree with you.

Is a solar eclipse happening, or something else weird?

[...of J.Temperance]

17. But the law is in the Constitution

This would need a Constitutional Amendment.

[Burning Water]

29. Man, I really hate

to rain on your parade, but it would be easier to get impeachment that to get the Constitutional amendment that would be needed. Besides, even if it was passed, it probably wouldn't apply to Bush. 1) it would violate the constitutional provision against e post facto laws, and 2) there would probably be a 'grandfather clause' in it.

The Repukes control all branches of government because the 'won' the last few elections. Concentrate on 2006 and 2008.

[radio4progressives]

48. What about this idea:

Remember how the Supreme court made a "one time" special EXCEPTION, not to be considered as "the rule" when those bastards selected King George in 2000?

You remember that right?

Whereas, Due to massive ELECTION FRAUD as evidenced in the GAO report that has now been released to the public and filed

Whereas, due to a plethora of recent court findings of election fraud in various states concerning computer hacking of Diebold machines, flipping votes for Bush etc.

Whereas, the as provided by all this evidence, the people's choice has been shown to be willfully and wrongfully stolen and defrauded

Whereas, the party committing the fraud is wrongfully occupying the white house and Congress

Whereas, The true and honest election results show that we the people voted a different party and a different person to lead this nation

Whereas, We the people have no other recourse but seel a redress of our greivances and to seek justice has been duly and sufficiently carried out.

Therefore We the people seek to hold a Special Recall Election in order to correct the wrongs committed by the perpetrators of this fraud.

I know this is written badly, but you get the point..

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

131. Yes, yes. If the SCOTUS can select him as President in 2000 based

on very bogus logic and a stolen election, then is the sky not the limit?

These guys don't play by the rules, by the laws. So I see no need to tie ourselves up in knots like in a game of twister in trying to find a way within the current system to change things.

Surely the SCOTUS could deselect him now based on massive violations of the law, the constitution, civil liberties of Americans, war crimes, and election theft.

We may not obtain precisely what we ask for, demand, request, but the mere asking, demanding, requesting makes a very important statement in and of itself.

Just say NO to torture in our name, NO to stolen elections, NO to being lied into war, NO to spying on Americans, NO to lying to Americans, NO to corruption and the culture of greed that runs our government.

Just SAY it. SAY NO!!!

[tx_dem41]

30. "these past five years...."

Ummmm...there was an election, as spelled out in the Constitution, after 4 of those years.

[radio4progressives]

51. Didn't you get the memo?

The GAO report recently released and filed provides evidence of massive election machine fraud (computer hacking, flipping tabulation results etc etc etc etc) ..

That election is a fraud. Kerry won that election .

[...of J.Temperance]

58. Where is that GAO report? Can we read it, is there a link?

Yes?

[radio4progressives]

64. sure... I'll look for it, i thought it was posted at DU... ?

[radio4progressives]

72. GAO Report - pdf links

http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/GAOReport_ElectionSecurity_102105.pdf

you might have heard of brad friedman, of "brad blog" ?

he's all over this issue like flies on shite... he's got a handle on most of the salient points in this and other reports. here's a link to archives pertinent to this subject..


http://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=BradBlog.com&hl=en&cof=GALT%3A%23333333%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%2337352E%3BVLC%3A000000%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AC6B396%3BLBGC%3A8E866F%3BALC%3A000000%3BLC%3A000000%3BT%3A44423A%3BGFNT%3A663333%3BGIMP%3A663333%3BFORID%3A1%3B&oe=ISO-8859-1&ie=ISO-8859-1&forid=1&client=pub-3105952734699688&sitesearch=BradBlog.com&q=GAO+Report&sa=Search+the+Blog&domains=BradBlog.com

you can also go to bradblog.com and bookmark his site, for updates, archives, radio programs archived and live.

[...of J.Temperance]

40. What you're suggesting is anarchy

"Take the matter into our own hands"

This is unprecedented and dangerously unchartered waters. It's not a good idea and it'd never get a majority of public support anyway.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error.

[radio4progressives]

52. If " We the People" is defined as Anarchist, then I guess our

Constitution was written by a band of anarchists..

they were really dangerous, that's true.

very dangerous to the king and his loyalists.

[...of J.Temperance]

54. I think it's completely ironic that your icon is

"We The People..." and yet you didn't know that a recall of a President is not in the Constitution.

You actually asked further up "what law says we can't recall"

And yes, I admit that Benjamin Franklin was obviously a well-known and indeed rabid anarchist :eyes:

[radio4progressives]

60. I'll say it again...

to say there is nothing in the Constitution to PERMIT a recall election, is not evidence that the Constition PROHIBITS recall elections either.

Again, this is circular arguement, but you can't continue to say that because it isn't in the Constitition means that it doesn't allow for it.

and yes i know that Franklin was anarchist.. and he wasn't the only one. ;)

[MadisonProgressive]

73. By that logic

Since it states that a president can only be elected to 2 terms, if the majority of the public wants him for additional terms, they should be able to do it?

[Trevelyan]

79. Bush has been working on that for his lifetime presidency

TPM Cafe had an article several months ago and so did other sites and linked to the Congressional site and Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the Judiciary who gives Conyers such a hard time, was one of the sponsors to get rid of 2 term limits.

http://www.impeachpac.org/
http://www.conyersblog.us/

TELL CONGRESS TO IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH
http://democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/65

http://www.johnconyers.com/ - Conyer's Action Items

[radio4progressives]

84. that's interesting... n/t

[radio4progressives]

82. they did with FDR.... elected president three times in a row...

had he not passed away in his third term, he would have served 12 years as president. Harry Truman took over after FDR's passing, who then ended the war in Japan by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

always wondered if FDR would have gone that far.... we'll never know.

[MadisonProgressive]

88. That was prior to the 22nd Amendment which prohibits it

[DemInDistress]

91. thats not right..fdr was president from 1933 - 1945

Fdr served 4 terms although the 4th was cut short due to his death
in april 1945, then,harry truman took over and he nuked japan.

Correct me if I'm wrong....

[radio4progressives]

98. My bad, you're right! (sheesh!)

I don't know why i keep thinking it was only 3

three terms... maybe cuz he passed away during his last term.

anyway, yes thanks for the correction!

[DemInDistress]

121. your still a bright person I like your message !!! nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

124. FDR was elected 4 times, wasn't he?

1932
1936
1940
1944

He did serve 12 years - from 1933 to 1945.

[Silverhair]

125. Four times. 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944. NT

[onenote]

89. and nothing in the constitution prevents me from declaring myself king

But it would have about as much meaning as your "recall election".

onenote

[radio4progressives]

97. Yes it does - The First Amendement says you can call yourself a jackass

if you want to. ;)

But seriously, the Constitution DOES call for the President to be ELECTED, vis a vis Electoral College system, etc.

So, no kings. but you can declare yourself one until the cows home, if you want - that doesn't mean anyone else is going to coronate you!

on the other, you'll have to fight with King George first, i think.. ;)

[driver8]

111. King, eh?? Oh, very nice...and who made you king?

King Arthur: I am your king.

Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.

King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Woman: Well how'd you become king then?


King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.

Dennis: Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!

Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

130. Maybe you would do well to expand your repertoire

musically to two or more notes.

[Burning Water]

128. It's not a circular argument!

The Constitution provides means to remove the President. A recall election is not one of them.

What, exactly, is your plan?? You organize an election. The Feds certainly won't do it, nor will the states. So the people vote to throw him out. He STILL doesn't have to go, as there is no law to compel him to.

Your "recall election" has all the moral and legal authority of those 'war crimes' trials that academics and other such fools keep having. After they are all over, Bush is still in office, and is still not in prison.

Work on the elections. That's where our best hopes lie. The sad fact is, that the United States, and the world, will still be here in 2008. Some people will have died; some people will be born, and life will carry on as always. Unless, of course, the fundies are right, AND the Rapture occurs before then.

But if they are not, if we want to improve the world, we have to win the 2006 and 2008 elections.

[Yupster]

140. How about this

We hold a special election 1n 06 for Galactic Emperor who would serve as the president's boss.

There is nothing in the Constitution saying it can't be done so therefore it must be legal.

Sort of - kinda maybe.

[AntiCoup2K4]

144. If the choice is Anarchy or continued fascism, then give me....

[Tom Joad]

19. Nothing in the constitution forbids it. eom

[ISUGRADIA]

21. Then there can be a movement to get a law passed so the

courts can throw it out as unconstitutional.

[radio4progressives]

25. That's what i thought...

I know the Constitution provides the process with which a president is to be elected - but i don't recollect ever reading anything that says specifically a president may NOT be recalled.

[ISUGRADIA]

28. There was no provision stating a president counl not be limited

to two terms either originally. BUT It took an amendment to make it so. Same thing here.

Could be done via the amendement process.

[...of J.Temperance]

42. Also an AWFUL lot of State Legislatures would have to approve of

The Constitutional Amendment...actually, the entire thing would probably take until 2008 to get approved!!

[Yupster]

46. The original Constitution

before it was amended had an entirely different way of electing a president and it didn't include a vote of the people at all. It's an interewsting process, but it couldn't work once political parties were developed.

BTW, a Constitutional Amendment requires 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures. It's a difficult process.

[...of J.Temperance]

49. It would take UNTIL 2008 to clear ALL of those hurdles n/t

[radio4progressives]

62. Right. That's LONG TIME... n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

69. So if it's going to take until 2008 to recall Dubya...and he's

Already going to be out of office in 2008...I'm confused already?

[radio4progressives]

71. My whole point is that we can NOT wait until 2008.

That's underpinning issue in my entire treatise.

Personally, i might be able to grin and bear if it were merely Bush, but it's his puppet masters that must be removed from office.

Chiefly, Dick Cheney the evil one usually found hiding behind the curtain.

[MadisonProgressive]

74. Then you are talking revolution.

[radio4progressives]

83. yep, sure ... don'cha think it's about time? n/t

[MadisonProgressive]

87. If we don't have a new president come 1/20/2009, then it's time.

[Silverhair]

126. Tough Luck. You will have to wait until Jan 20, 2009. NT

[radio4progressives]

127. Silver Hair: As Much as You Want Bush to Stay in Power....

only matches the extent to which millions of people do not.

So, No... I do NOT HAVE to wait until Jan 20, 2009 for his criminal ass, and his puppet master(s)to be removed.

Not as long as we have the political will and excercise that will to wresting power from the charlatans occupying the seat of power now.

(edited spelling and grammatical errors)

[Silverhair]

138. So if I don't jump on your banwagon I am a Bushite?? LOL !!

I am a realist who is able to count votes in congress and know that he will not be removed by impeachment.

Nor am I an RW because I don't accept your idea of trying to use extra-constitutional means.

[radio4progressives]

145. I can count too, and I agree. Bush will not be impeached.

That's why i'm calling for a Velvet Revolution style, Special Recall Election.

You don't have to agree, or "jump on my band wagon".

You don't have to participate at all.....

I know how you feel. I didn't jump on the bandwagon for the California Recall Election, in fact i fervently opposed it.

But in the end i did want to make my voice heard, just to mark my ballot "No on Recall".. the tabulated results said my vote was in the minority.

Unfortunately, I'll never know how honest that election was, because it was later discovered that tabulation machines were hacked into in certain counties. But that's a discussion for another day.

Happy Holidays, Sir.

[Yupster]

45. The Constitution provides for the

way a president is elected and it sets the president's term to four years.

How much more clear can it be?

I agree it does not specifically say a president cannot be recalled. I guess it doesn't specifically say a president cannot be forced to wear a kilt to the State of the Union Address either.

[...of J.Temperance]

26. 'Um, Article II, Section 4 forbids it

Sorry, but Article II, Section 4.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

86. How long between Grey's re-election and the beginning of the

recall movement, funded by rich gop'ers?

[radio4progressives]

100. Fall of 2003 - with only a year left for the next election

and yes, the recall was launched by a multi-billionaire who had personal ambitions of becoming the governor himself, but fairly quickly bailed from the race. lots of speculation about that.

[Tarc]

3. I think we should concentrate on the laws we have before us

and not the ones we wish to have. There is simply no mechanism in place for a presidential recall election, nor should there ever be. It is a partisan gimmick tool to backdoor an election, as we saw in California.

[radio4progressives]

6. Well - I heard this stated over and over - but it occured just the same..

and the results were not nullified.

[ISUGRADIA]

7. The California Constitution allows recall of elected officials,

Why would the results be nullified?

[pinto]

35. I'll reiterate other posts: the CA Constitution has a recall clause. And,

the Davis recall was a backdoor election.

And, my pet peeve, recalls are not generally good government.

[bowens43]

10. Nope. The Constitution doesn't allow it.

We can try to impeach if we get the majority in the house but that is our only option.

[MadisonProgressive]

12. Could you imagine if it did?

The average term for a U.S. President would be about 18 months!

On edit: Which may not be such a bad thing!

[radio4progressives]

15. indeed!

:applause:

[...of J.Temperance]

47. Why are you applauding? A Democratic President could also be

Recalled after 18 months if the Constitution allowed such a provision.

[tx_dem41]

32. It would be a horrible thing.

The recall campaign would begin hours after the election was over.

[onenote]

92. tx_dem41 is exactly right

The idea of a national recall similar to the California recall has been kicked around on DU in the past. It just doesn't work. Lets start with the petitioning process -- in California, 12 percent of the number of people that voted in the previous election have to sign petitions. At the national level, that would be around 14.5 million handwritten signature by my estimate, and each one of them would have to be checked to make sure its accurate. That should take something like forever. Plus, under our electoral college system, not every vote is equal (as would be the case if we elected presidents based on popular vote alone), so its unlikely that you could ever ratify a constitutional amendment for a straight recall approach any more than you could amend the constitution to do away with the electoral college.

Even more problematic would be the fact that after any close election, there immediately would be an effort by the losing side to recall the victor. We would be in a state of perpetual campaigning (even more than is the case today, which is bad enough). Ridiculous amounts of money would be expended on the effort and, quite frankly, Democrats would be as vulnerable, if not moreso, to this kind of tyranny.

No thanks

onenote

[radio4progressives]

103. Well, it's your opinion. Your President is in power, so i don't blame you

for your reluctance. If he were my president, i'd respond in the same way.

[Burning Water]

20. It's impossible because,

there is no provision in the US Constitution for a recall election. There is one in the California constitution, Bush will most likely be president until 2008.

[pinto]

24. I adamantly oppose the idea...you realize it would require an Amendment

to the Constitution - even if there was broad support for the issue, it would be years before a State by State vote to change the Constitution could occur.

But more to your point, I'll take the representative government we have and work for Democratic success in the 2006 midterms. I don't think recalls are good government. They are too prone to manipulation (petition driven) by a small segment of the population with the money, time and ideological fervor to bypass a general election. We have general elections, let's focus there.

(aside)The CA recall was, imho, a well financed extremist Republican success. Orange County and San Diego parlayed general discontent for Davis into a minority victory in electing a Republican Governor.

[radio4progressives]

61. Good point...

I just can't take another three years of these bastards.

Saber rattling for Regime Change in Venezuela & Syria. Missles aimed at China and Iran - and they're working on behind the scenes for regime change in Cuba as we speak.

I just think we are in a state of national emergency, and it really seems like at no other time in our history has it been as critical as we are now.

Despite all of our past military enteprises and quest for global domination, ousting of elected leaders to install dictators to do our bidding. Maybe what it is, there's something of universal convergence of chickens coming home to roost clashing up against more of the same mentality.

I find Bush Co. exceedingly dangerous for all of human kind, and i don't think we can withstand three more years of the same or worse.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

95. So what if the Founding fathers had discussed the

legislative basis for the Boston Tea Party? For independence?

Extreme situations call for new answers, new approaches.

A movement for recall could galvanize a lot of support, and give some incentive to the powers that be to watch out.

And for the loyal opposition to fight on as hard as possible.

[Tom Joad]

27. We must take people action. Jan 31, night of Bush's speech...

Drown Out Bush’s Lies!

In large cities and small towns all across the country, join in rallies one hour before Bush’s address as we make our determination to “Drive Out the Bush Regime” the political message of the day.

At 9:00 PM EST, just as Bush starts to speak, everywhere we will BRING THE NOISE. In a cacophony of sound, we will drown out his address with music: from drums to violins, from hip hop and classical; and with noise: banging pots and ringing church bells, sound car horns and lifting our voices.

Then, on Saturday, Feb 4th, join in protests in DC (and probably around the country) to Washington D.C.

The Saturday after the State of the Union address, massive numbers will protest at the seat of government. Prominent voices of conscience will help deliver the people’s verdict on Bush’s criminal regime with our demand: Bush Step Down And Take Your Program with You!

http://worldcantwait.net/

We do not have a choice. We cannot let Bush destroy our country and destroy our planet. We cannot permit the continual imperial slaughter Bush brings to people in Iraq, to Haiti, to Palestine, to working folks here in the US. We cannot sit and wait a few more years of more of the same.

Off the forums and into the streets!

[...of J.Temperance]

33. No, that's a bad idea...it's GOOD if as many people as possible hear

What Junior has got to say...just think about that for a moment will you. It's GOOD if as many people as possible hear what Junior has got to say.

The public has woken up, they're not stupid, they have the ability to dissect what he says.

[Tom Joad]

36. Ironically, it is bush and co. (and more than a few Dems) who are adamant

supporters of recall campaigns. Witness what has happened in Venezuela. There, of course, it was the wealthy elite supported by the US establishment. Here it will be people-power.

Remember Marcos of the Philippines? Remember Somoza?

[ISUGRADIA]

38. Hell, we don't even have the right to get a people's vote for president

now. We vote for electors. They elect the president and the "loser" can have a higher popular vote (Gore 2000 +500,000 over Bush).

[Yupster]

141. States don't even have to have popular votes

for president.

If the state legislature wants to, it can just name the electors without any election at all for president.

South Carolina was one of the original 13 colonies, but it didn't have its first popular vote for president until 1868.

[ISUGRADIA]

142. Great point

They almost did that in Florida in 2004, the state leg voting on who got the electoral votes. There is nothing other than public opinion that prevents any other state from changing its laws to let the stat leg determine who gets the electoral votes.

[Trevelyan]

75. Very Good Idea - Everyone should write to Congress Immediately

I have been thinking along those lines for a long time and also the fact that Europe has a speedy remedy in the No Confidence votes and quickly reorganizes its government and gets the criminals out of office before they can do the damage bushco has done to our country.

We need an auditible paper trail though. I have read about arnold not only meeting with Enron to create the energy crisis to get rid of Davis but also election fraud in the Recall election.

The Calif. AG in 2004 made some brave and strong statements about the end of Democracy if elections are rigged centered on Diebold and ES&S and tried to impound some of the blackboxes and more recently that California is close to getting rid of Diebold.

[radio4progressives]

80. All of what you say about what happened in California is true...

but recent events give me a significant measure of renewed hope that everyone's hard work on election fraud will not be in vain. a lot of progress has been made in that regard, but more work needs to be done.

Bingo! on the "Vote of No Confidence"!!!!

I hadn't thought about it like this until you mentioned it, but Canada just held a month ago a parliamentary session declaring a "Vote of No Confidence", and scheduled 90 days for elections to be held in January. Now that's exactly what we need in this country. They have a multi party system, i suspect that means their voting method is by Proportional Representation, which is actually far more democratic than our system.

It just galls me every time some damn fool gets up on the soap box declaring "ours is the greatest democracy in the world"

What a load of horseshit!

So at the least we can re-frame this issue as calling a "Vote of No Confidence!" - in the meantime, we can have the puppet master, President Dick Cheney arrested on a file thick of charges, it would take a hundred years just to read off.

At the very least, we could get that bastard prosecuted and convicted asap. For that, we don't need to wait for impeachment hearings.

So we could effectively de-neuter this imperial presidency significantly by frog marching that evil pig to Leavenworth for life.

[MrBenchley]

110. And say what exactly?

Dear Mr. Congressman:
I wish you would pass a law so we could have a recall and be just as fucked up as California.
Yours truly....

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

85. The People's Recall!! I love it!! There has to be a way in such

horrid situation to unseat these guys.

[onenote]

90. we can barely muster the votes in congress to save anwr but

you think the country is prepared to rise up en masse against this administration. You need a serious reality check. The country is divided very evenly. Even with chimpy's popularity in decline, there is no public outcry for getting rid of him (other than here on DU). A "people's" movement needs the people, and the numbers aren't there. Elections in 2006 are our best hope and it will be a struggle to regain even a bare majority in one house of Congress if Democrats wander off on Quixotic quests for recalls, etc.

onenote

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

94. Congress is not representative of the people at this point in time!

People who weren't upset with them before are crossing the line.

A vocal faction in the population can have a disproportionately large impact.

I disagree re the Quixotic quests.

I believe a groundswell of outrage could be very valuable in a number of ways.

[radio4progressives]

101. You might be right.. and actually Bush's numbers is soaring according

to today's reports in the Corporate media.

it must be the truth...

[radio4progressives]

102. self deleted duplicate

[autorank]

93. All calls for *'s ouster need to be supported. This is a good one

because it makes sense. The election was a joke. Fraud is evident from all the requisite measures. Whether or not we KNOW it was enough to change the election is the criteria for a recall. Why? Because the administration cannot show us that they were elected. The "magical ballots," the secrecy of the vendors regarding access to their machines, the blatant disenfranchisement of voters of color...all of these call for a recall!

Great post. Recommended.

[The Judged]

96. Maybe you should ask John C. Yoo to fix the Constitutional issue for you:

He seems to have experience at providing legal-mumbo-jumbo bases for side-stepping the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=235

http://www.icasinc.org/bios/yoo_jc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_C._Yoo

[radio4progressives]

106. that nasty remark wasn't really called for...

there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says: "Recall Elections are Prohibited", that I can find.

There is nothing written in the Constitution which PROHIBITS a "Vote of No Confidence", however the Constitutionally prescribed METHOD does present barriers and obstacles in holding a Recall election, and obstacles in a "No Confidence Vote" procedure, since our isn't a parliamentary system, so it isn't designed for such procedures. But then ours isn't designed for a participatory democracy for that matter - which is actually at the core of the problem, i think you're trying to point out, but it isn't the same as being "un-Constitutional"

[The Judged]

107. My remark was not meant to insult you! It was meant to insult Yoo!

Sorry, if it was not clear.

[radio4progressives]

116. ROTFLMAO! My Bad!

:rofl:

To be honest, initially i did think your intention was stricktly aimed at Yoo....then i started reading a bit more into it... and *then* read it as aim at, ah hem, yours truly. :silly: :hide:


thanks for the clarification... ;)

[passy]

99. Sounds good to me.

It's either that or the possibility of ending up with Condi or Frist as president following impeachment.

[tritsofme]

104. The Constitution clearly does not allow for any sort of recall of

the President.


If he is impeached, then the order of succession kicks in.

A recall election is not possible or constitutional because of various constitutional provisions.

Article II Section 1 states:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term

And Amendment 20 Section 1 states:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.



Short of death, resignation, or impeachment a president's term lasts four years and ends on January 20th of that year. There are no exceptions.

[petgoat]

114. What's wrong with a National Referendum in 11/06, a vote of

No Confidence? If Bush loses, and doesn't step down, he's impeached.

[Llewlladdwr]

135. Impeached by whom exactly?

Unless the Dems take control of Congress ain't gonna happen. You can have all the silly little recall elections and votes of no confidence you want but the world is what it is. Try and stick to schemes that are grounded in reality...

[petgoat]

148. Impeached by Congress, of course, after 11/06 sweep. nm

[MrBenchley]

108. Why not demand a pony too?

Jeeze, what a silly idea.

[mmonk]

115. 2006, the FINAL CONFLICT

between what's left of our vestiges of democracy, checks and balances, and laws and the fledgling dictatorship (neocon backed by multi-national corp's). That's the way I see it.

[radio4progressives]

119. Exactly So... "Last Vesitiges of democracy" - 2006 -

the 2006 results will be THE FINAL test in my mind... the debates of who should be our party's candidate for 2008 almost seems laughable to me at this particular moment in time. There seems to be an astonishing level of denial wrt to how much violence has been done to our democracy - just in the past five years.

The question for us is, do we stand by as mere observers and victims?

many say that's all we can (and should) ever do...

I'm suggesting that dictim is a terrible lie and we passively accept that "conventional wisdom" at our peril.

[mmonk]

133. I agree we have to do something

if democracy fails. It's obvious the founding fathers did not see a congress allowing a president to act outside the constitution and our laws. If congress doesn't do its job to preserve our system of government, we are bound to find a way to do something whether it's there in the constitution or not (because a dictatorship from the executive branch isn't in it either).

[radio4progressives]

136. Well Put! Succinct and to the Point!

If congress doesn't do its job to preserve our system of government, we are bound to find a way to do something whether it's there in the constitution or not (because a dictatorship from the executive branch isn't in it either).

:applause: :toast: :applause:

[Dhampir Kampf]

134. I agree.

However, he's working hard to regain the people's favor. I know it's unlikely.

But claiming that he is responsible for the War beginning, writing Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, little things like that.

I don't think that will sway many people. But, it might bring back some of those who walk on the 'unsure' line.

[The Blue Knight]

146. It's never going to happen.

I'd suggest that people work on something more productive than trying to get Bush recalled, like say, throwing rocks against a tree.

[socialistrot]

147. Get real now!

Work to elect Mark Warner in ’08.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

149. An absolute waste of time...

The U.S. Constitution doesn't have a provision for a recall election. It's either impeachment or nothing.

Furthermore, I whole-heartedly disagree the the very concept of a recall elections. If the office-holder has commmitted crimes while in office, there are (in nearly all states) provisions to have that person stripped of his/her office upon conviction. Otherwise, I see no point in holding a special election just to prevent an office holder that you don't like from spending another eighteen months in office -- particularly if no crime has been committed.

Impeachment? Yes. Recall? No.

[radio4progressives]

151. Those who think that "No Crimes Have Been Committed"

are either living in a completely different universe or drink the same potion from the same punch bowl as the busheviks, and the same rule applies for anyone who thinks that our Democratic Law Makers will pursue impeachment proceedings, regardless of that evidence left to their own devices.

They have not taken "bold" actions on any initiative without having first been deluged with faxes, emails, telephone calls, and actions in the streets first and the record shows that, too often not even then. at least not in a timely or unified way.

The naysayers who posit that such notions (as special recall elections for a president who has demonstrated contempt or a utter disregard for the Constitution) as not appropriate, or not constitutional, or not ethical - are apparently not very concerned.

The question begs to be asked: exactly how disastrous do things have to get before you would sufficiently be spurred into action?

[radio4progressives]

152. THE CASE FOR A NATIONAL RECALL ELECTION

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20051202/cm_ucru/thecaseforanationalrecallelection

Why Wait Three Years for Our Next President?

(snip)

"When a president falls below 40 percent approval in public opinion polls--as President Bush has done twice in the past two months--it's usually a sign of serious political danger," writes Richard Benedetto in USA Today. "Since 1950, five of the eight other presidents who fell below 40 percent--Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush--lost their bids for reelection or opted not to run again. A sixth, Richard Nixon, was overwhelmed by the Watergate scandal and resigned. Only two, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, turned things around." But even Clinton never regained his former appeal. His hand-picked successor, vice president Al Gore, won the 2000 election by such a narrow margin that Republicans were able to steal it away."

(snip)

"The "political capital" Bush claimed after the 2004 election has vanished over the last year. Dead Americans piled up in Iraq and New Orleans, his closest political allies were indicted for corruption and treason, gas prices soared and his party's right-wing Christianists stabbed him in the back over the Harriet Miers' nomination. All of Bush's best-laid plans--to privatize Social Security, pass another round of tax cuts for the wealthy and possibly expand his wars to Syria and Iran--lie in ruins. And it's only going to get worse now that his moderate and centrist Republican allies in Congress are beginning to peel away: some to appeal to swing voters in next year's midterm elections, others to align themselves with John McCain's incipient 2008 presidential campaign and some simply because Bush's poll numbers make him radioactive."

(snip)