Is there any viable way to oust President Bush?

[Dis]

I'm having second thoughts about this democracy thing . Why did we elect this psycho?

At first I thought this Iraq thing was a good idea.

But lately, I've been having some very bad thoughts and premonitions. I hope they aren't true. All I see is gloom and doom for the U.S. Yes we can easily take out Iraq. But it won't end there. This I know.

What sucks is we have some maniac dictator going to war when most of the country doesn't want to. I thought we would fix this situation after vietnam. Can't Congress do something about this? I'm starting to think this is too personal for Bush. He shouldn't be allowed to handle this case because of personal involvement because of his father.

You should hear what Nelson Mandela has said about us .

I just hate not being in control. It's like being in a cab ride with an psycho cab driver as most of them are. I kind of want to get out. But yet I still want to get to my destination.

I wish I was president.

[Asher]

Double-dare him to resign.

He'd go for it.

[MRT144]

assination. sometimes the ends justify the means.

[Dis]

assination? not familiar with that word.

I hope this isn't spam. I get in trouble for spamming

I was thinking about making a thread about asking for advice on how not to spam, but I'm pretty sure that will be closed due to being spam . Oh the irony . I really don't intend on being a spammer. I just come off that way sometimes.

I really try not to spam, but sometimes a thought comes to mind, and I have to post it. I know I should think before I post more often. I do that in real life. I don't think before I speak.

Any other advice on how not to spam?

[MRT144]

assination- the act of death through sodomy

[DRoseDARs]

Only Congress can declare war, but Pres. Jr. is sure to get that declaration.

As far as ridding ourselves of this menace, only going to the polls will work as he hasn't technically done anything to warrant impeachment...yet. Aparrently you have to "get some" in the oval office AND lie about in order to earn yourself a swift kick in the arse from Congress.

[Az]

I never understood this: why can only the congress declare war? It's a clear cut executive decision, not a legislative one, IMO.

[Asher]

It's easier to have one warmonger rather than hundreds.

[Az]

Well, where is the separation of powers, then?

[DRoseDARs]

"Foreign Policy Powers:
Congress has important powers in the areas of foreign policy and national defence. Chief among these are the power to declare war, to create and maintain an army and navy, to make rules governing land and naval forces, and to regulate foreign commerce.

Congress shares foreign policy and national defence responsibilities with the President. Throughout American history, however, it generally has submitted to presidential leadership in this area. Although Congress has declared war only 5 times, the President, as commander in chief, has used military force in other nations on more than 160 occasions. Most significant of these were the Korean War, 1950 to 1953, and the Vietnam War,1965 to 1973. Both conflicts were fought without declarations of war.

After the Vietnam War, Congress acted to reassert its foreign policy powers. Congress held that the Constitution never intended the President to have the power to involve the nation in undeclared wars. Therefore in 1973, over President Nixon's veto, Congress passed the War Powers Act. This law forbids the President to commit American forces to combat for more than 60 days without congressional notification within 48 hours. Almost every President since the act's passage has protested its constitutionality. During this period Presidents used military force in Cambodia (1975), Iran (1980), Grenada (1983), Lebanon (1983), Libya (1986), the Persian Gulf (1987), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991), and Haiti (1994). Most of these were quick strikes. Nevertheless, in most cases the President notified Congress of the action.

...Congress felt that Nixon and previous Presidents had abused their power as commander in chief. They had done so by involving American soldiers for prolonged periods in an undeclared war in Vietnam. Congress's view was that the presidency needed to be checked, which was the intention of the War Powers Act."



United States Government - Democracy in Action: Presidential Election Edition

Richard C. Remy, Glencoe, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998

[CerberusIV]

Democracy = elected dictatorship

Particularly in the US and UK where a party majority in the legislature means no real checks on the power of the executive.

The only limitation on these people is that they want to be re-elected but since most are extreme ego-maniacs they believe they can win an election almost regardless of what they do.

No, you don't want to be president, no sane person does and that is why the USA gets the presidents it does.

[Drake Tungsten]

Bush already got the declaration, in the fall. Congress already signed off on the use of force in Iraq.

[Az]

DRoseDARs: I realize that this is the current way things are, but why? I know that it is more useful like that, but isn't the US all about "rights" and stuff like that? It seems to be inconsistent.

*shows ignorance of US political structure *

[Spiffor]

Since Bush didn't get impeached after the massive corruption of his administration had been revealed (Enron et. al.), I guess there's only the "intern" tactics left
Ih wait, everybody in the Congress will tell it is an undignant attack, and absolutely no reason to impeach him, scratch that

[Capt Dizle]

President Bush is one of the strongest leaders American has ever had. He is honest, straightforward, dedicated, and pure of heart. Unlike most of the men before him, America can trust him to do the right thing irrespective of the effect that will have on his political future.