A question just dawned upon me...do you think that people should be able to vote to impeach an official in office, such as the president, a member in congress, the senate, a member of the house of representatives, or the governor of a state or mayor of a city?
page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 31 total items
-
Support Limerock Cafe - full feature forum and gallery- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
oh you never know what they have there in the congress and there so i can't realy say but people should be able to vote so that their vote would count. as for the thing with bush maybe the votes of the people are responsable for the fact that he won but then again maybe it was all decided before, gues you'll never know.
- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote: These days, it seems that the most difference is made by the electoral college when it comes to presidential elections.
Which is different from any other time in what regard? The Electoral College has always been what mattered in Presidential elections. The Constitution establishes it that way.
Quote: all because of a last minute decision from the senate and the house of representatives in Florida in 2000
What "last minute decision" would this be?
Quote: Many of our liberties are being lost because leadership is lacking in the talent that they need to efficiently run the government.
How are liberties being lost through lack of talent? And to who? Since governments naturally seek to take liberty, one would think that one that lacks talent would be one that would be less capable of taking liberty. Especially if the talent is also efficient. This argument really doesn't make sense.
Especially when combined with the previous statement about not listening to the people. If a government is supposed to get things done, listening to "the people" hampers its ability to do so.
Quote: Second, I think that it wouldn't be a good decision because, even if such an amendment was passed down to the people and the president is supposedly impeached because of popular vote, the senate and the house of representatives would still have to vote for a majority to impeach the president, like it is now.
Why, exactly? If you're taking the power of impeachment from the House and devolving it to the people, why not change the required majorities while you're at it?
As it stands, the House needs a majority vote to impeach the President, and the Senate needs a 2/3 supermajority to convict in an impeachment trial. There's no reason that can't be changed. If the 2/3 requirement wasn't there and only a majority was needed, Andrew Johnson would have been removed from office.
Quote: There's the possibility that an official who takes the president's position over could be the same way, worse, or even better if we're lucky to get someone better.
Generally, this "official" would be the Vice President, unless the office is vacant for whatever reason. The Vice President shouldn't be an unknown factor; one should have an idea about what kind of President the sitting Vice President would be.
- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
Oh, so your melmachine18... Ehehehe, got a lil confused right there...
Intersting point right there...
Here in the Philippines, we only go by popular vote. Whoever gets the most votes wins the election. I don't really get the American System of voting, but it would really be interesting if people could vote for impeachment, kinda like a silent version of People Power here in our country...
Twice it had happened... First president Marcos then president Estrada. Both have been thrown out of power because of popular demand, but not popular vote... I dunno, but nuthin really ever came out of that overthrowing. A lil looseing in th noose round the neck maybe from Marcos's Dictatorship regime, but really, nothing came out, no change, nuthin..
In the US, maybe they can afford often presidential changes, but in our country, a presidential change would mean disaster both polotically and economically... Projects would be abandoned and funds would be wasted... If the people were given the power to vote against the president, it might cause lots of problems, problems which would root from the people's abuse of power... After all, if you give man a new set of hands, how sure a re you he would use it for good and not turn into a Doc Ock of sorts...
Just an opinion SilentMasamune... Ehehehe, Hai! Over and Out!
This signature violates the signature guidelines, thus it has been removed.
- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
If that certain official's leadership is hopeless and he/she tolerates corruption or being part of if. then so be it. they hav my vote. . .
This impeachment thing is very familiar in my country. . .but i cud care less about it.
â??Eye of twilight, give us sight.
Take our offer, give us might.
Make our power tears of night.â??- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by redblitzkriegIf that certain official's leadership is hopeless and he/she tolerates corruption or being part of if. then so be it. they hav my vote. . .
This impeachment thing is very familiar in my country. . .but i cud care less about it.Damn right. We are currently experiencing mild civil unrest because our president just nationally admitted that she called an election official during the election. Something which is prohibited and now, has definitely made one heck of serious problem in our country.
Quote by mellydo you think that people should be able to vote to impeach an official in office, such as the president, a member in congress, the senate, a member of the house of representatives, or the governor of a state or mayor of a city?
Of course they can. The people decided that they should be in their position but if they cannot perform their duties, then the should be able to bring them down.
And btw, People Power happened thrice in the Philipines. Arroyo just deemed the third one as irrelevant because it was against her rule.
Search for the "Hello, Garci" on Google for more info on our president's little slip-up.
- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
I sure do! They should have the right to vote for any of those, since the times of monarchy are long gone and now it 'power to the people' (or something ;) ).
p.s. Good to know it is you, Mel, coz I was going through my FL lately and haven't seen you there.
'This is the story about dragons, magic and people dreams' - Dragonblood.
Current chapter: 12- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
This is in deed a good question!
It depends a lot on the people who vote ...
I think they should vote who they think is best, but the truth is that the most or don't vote, or vote the most popular and don't really care if it's a good or bad choice.
They simply don't care!
And that's wrong!
The most of my friends said:
voting? me? Keep dreaming... I won't... I don't care!
It's just stupid of them... -___- I could keep writting, but I don't wan't to bore you ^_^--
i first was wondering... who is Silent Masamune?! But well... ^^;
Name change... a nice idea...! xd- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
Number 1: I liked your ol name way better.
Number 2: We al ready can impeach the president but I don't think we can impeach other officials.
Number 3: Yes. I think we should be able to considering this government is for the and BY the people. Meaning that we created our civilzation so we should be able to do most anyhting government-wise.Join us. There is no option but Green.
Be bold, think Green www.limerockcafe.netLimerockcafe.net
- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
palomaydarla
Simple is best!
-
well, i think that would be a great idea to get out some corrupted ppl in my country (colombia)... but that motion would be approved by them, before to be a formal law, so, that's never gonna happen...
and if u are asking that question refering to the ''politics'' here in Minitokyo... well, then i don't know... u see, is internet. and everybody is free to do what it want, (under good thoughts)... i don't know...:D have a nice day and take care... see ya later!!
- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by PwnOXz0rNumber 1: I liked your ol name way better.
Number 2: We al ready can impeach the president but I don't think we can impeach other officials.
Number 3: Yes. I think we should be able to considering this government is for the and BY the people. Meaning that we created our civilzation so we should be able to do most anyhting government-wise.Sure that was true for about 4yrs after the formation of our government. Today? Keep dreaming. The corrupt don't answer to rules, only money.
We begin and end in nothingness. Our darkness is confronting our ultimate nature, for nothing can come from nothing. We must sow the wind and reap the void, since the now is all we have. Together, we walk in darkness.
- Jul 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
I m not very sure bout that. In a contry there should be a leader. But in a house i dun think so. >.< ~_~
- Jul 04, 2005
- Gallery
DarkBlade-
Dream Hunter
-
yes and if they disagree, we can stick a gun to their head or something, government has no power over something they dont govern. (mostly talking about rebellions and revolutions and such...)
- Jul 04, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by DarkBlade-yes and if they disagree, we can stick a gun to their head or
something, government has no power over something they dont govern.
(mostly talking about rebellions and revolutions and such...)This is why governments maintain instruments for the purpose of establishing power over things they don't govern.
- Jul 04, 2005
- Gallery
-
hm......im not sure.........hm.......ill get back to ya.....eventually! XD
~*We come to love by seeing an imperfect person perfectly*~
- Jul 04, 2005
- Gallery
-
with elected officials other than the president, don't most states already have a system where voters can directly get rid of an elected official through recalls, as done in california? and with corrupt senators/representatives, they would be under pressure to resign anyways due to negative public sentiment against them and voters would elect them out of office, as well.
but concerning impeaching the president, i don't think it would be a wise idea to put that directly in the hands of voters. impeaching the president shouldn't be so easy and done on a whim, especially when the terms of impeachment are quite vague: a president can be removed for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. by letting voters decide on impeachment, the office of the presidency would be terribly weakened and too influenced by public opinion polls, thereby preventing the president from making difficult decisions, that may be unpopular, but necessary. we want our president to be a leader and to not be afraid to make those hard choices.
lordstyphon makes an excellent point that if pres. andrew johnson had been impeached, the congress would have become too powerful and would have greatly weakened the presidency. i think that would have upset our checks and balances. besides, our system works...look at pres. nixon. he resigned anyways in face of impeachment, whereas pres. clinton wasn't impeached by the senate. whether or not you were disgusted by his philandering and lies about monica lewinsky, i don't think he should've been impeached for that anyways.
Don't worry about tomorrow, don't think about yesterday,
don't live in the future, just make it through today!
- Jul 04, 2005
- Gallery
CyberDragoon
The Prince of Nothing
-
I don't think their vote should be counted too much. After all most people are really dumb. They tend to go with the popular characters. If you live in California you will remember Arnold S.
- Jul 04, 2005
- Gallery
-
i will simply say something that i have learned....
"the person is smart....but the mass (people) is brute and incompetent"
simply
if i continue.... i am pretty sure i will gete another "sing" in my guestbook....so i will leave it like that.Zerokool
The end is now here...
why you just be nice?. Because the world is not nice!- Jul 04, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by bbls
but concerning impeaching the president, i don't think it would be a
wise idea to put that directly in the hands of voters. impeaching the
president shouldn't be so easy and done on a whim ............
the office of the presidency would be
terribly weakened and too influenced by public opinion polls, thereby
preventing the president from making difficult decisions, that may be
unpopular, but necessary. .Regardless of whether your statement is true, I think it would be OK if we weakened the position. Our president acts primary as an inconvenient road block to change. If we divided the Senate and House up into a sort of conservate versus liberate organization, we can pretty much bet nothing would get past them that wasn't rather useful (expect for unnecessary pay raises). What I really find offensive, is the life long terms of our superior judges. Nobody is so adaptable that they can appropriately serve a changing populations needs durring the course of 15 to 25 years or whatever.
If you would challenge me, then you must first stand before the Darkness. You must look into it and become it. You must fall before it and then reach out to encompass it. When it is joined to your heart, you must overcome its insidious temptation. You are ready to face me when you can betray even your own heart in service to your cause.
____________________________________________________________________________- Jul 04, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by bblswhether or not you were disgusted by his philandering and lies about monica lewinsky, i don't think he should've been impeached for that anyways.
I strongly agree with this.
Otoh I think dubbya should get this treatment _just_ for raiding the coffers, once he got into office. Our debt is huge now, and the US will be working this off for some long terms ahead.
We begin and end in nothingness. Our darkness is confronting our ultimate nature, for nothing can come from nothing. We must sow the wind and reap the void, since the now is all we have. Together, we walk in darkness.
- Jul 05, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote: ordstyphon makes an excellent point that if pres. andrew johnson had been impeached, the congress would have become too powerful and would have greatly weakened the presidency. i think that would have upset our checks and balances. besides, our system works...look at pres. nixon. he resigned anyways in face of impeachment, whereas pres. clinton wasn't impeached by the senate.
There seems to be some confusion about terms here. Johnson and Clinton *were* impeached.
The House impeaches someone; the Senate then tries the impeached official.
Quote by U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
Quote by U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.
- Jul 05, 2005
- Gallery
-
personally, people should be able to impeach any governmental figueres. however, since no one can tell what is the truth and what is untrue, it would be harder to tell who is doing what.
- Jul 06, 2005
- Gallery
-
I think that we should be able to it is our government and we have the right to get rid of someone but the question is is there anyone able to fill that spot that is better than the last person because polititians are all slimy creatures!!!
-The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart. ~Helen Keller :D
- Currently watching: Naruto, Skip Beat!
- Jul 06, 2005
- Gallery
- Anime Watchlist
-
Coming from my perspective, I think the people depend on the government to make the decisions. I think some of those decisions should be left to the people though, especially if the people know there will be a lot of impact in the future.
Support Limerock Cafe - full feature forum and gallery- Jul 07, 2005
- Gallery
page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 31 total items
Back to Love, Friends & Family | Active Threads | Forum Index
Only members can post replies, please register.