Posted on 10/16/2006 10:22:53 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Edited on 10/16/2006 10:33:07 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
If only we had a system like Britain's, where an unpopular Prime Minister can be turfed out by a simple vote of no-confidence. Unfortunately, we're saddled with a Constitution that requires the difficult and time-consuming process of impeachment. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with W until January, 2009. That in a nutshell, is the complaint of Sanford Levinson, professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin.
Now, it's true that the good professor notes some other beefs he has with our central document of government. But one suspects that it is the inability to summarily dispatch President Bush that prompted him to write his LA Times column of today, Our Broken Constitution. He writes:
[W]hatever happens, George W. Bush will continue to occupy the White House until Jan. 20, 2009, despite the fact that about 60% of Americans disapprove of the job he's doing. Most political systems around the world have mechanisms by which leaders who lose the public's confidence can be removed. A model in this regard is Britain, where the Tories unceremoniously dispatched Margaret Thatcher when she was no longer found suitable as their leader, and where the Labor Party is in the process of doing the same with Tony Blair. Under our Constitution, although criminals can be removed, mere incompetents are protected. One need not adopt a parliamentary system in order to construct a system by which Congress could declare "no confidence" in the president and force a replacement.
Buck up, professor. It's only a mere 27 months till we bid Bush farewell, and inaugurate . . . Newt?
LA Times/NewsBusters if-only-we-could-impeach ping to Today show list.
Unfortunately, we're saddled with a Constitution
____________________________________________________
Unfortunately, we're also saddled with a Constitution that prevents us from sending you to prison based on your views of our government. You might want to actually THINK about it....idiot.
DISCLAIMER: Levinson wrote the LA Times article wishing we could get rid of W more easily. Finkelstein, who is governsleast, wrote the NewsBusters column criticizing Levinson.
That pesky constitution again.
It's only 15 months until 2009? Time flies!
If he doesn't like our system of government, he can leave anytime he wants.
Hey, this guy may have a point. With the UK Parlaimentary system, Bush could remain President for the next 20 years.
Hey, Prof, you can always move to Britain. Then both of us would be happy (the prof and me, not Britain).
As the late Jerry Clower of Yazoo City Mississippi would have said, "Professor, it is clear to me that you are educated waaaay beyond your intelligence!"
Move to Italy, Prof. Levinson. You freak.
Whoops!! Good catch. I will try to fix!
Careful what you wish for, professor-if it was easy as you want it to be, Clinton would have been out after Waco. What people continue to forget is that W is a popular guy, people genuinely like him and have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the last six years. If we were set up like Brits, if someone brought up a no confidence vote against W, he would probably survive it..
Or is it the same two who make all that noise?
AMEN brother/sister.
"That pesky constitution again."
Liberals. Hiding safely behind the Constitution in their attempt to rip it to shreds.
That a "Professor of Law" would actually think this, much less write it publically, is laughable. Scary, but laughable! He really doesn't know what high crimes and misdeamors meant at the time that the USC was written.
Wait a minute... I thought matters of impeachment were governed by Scottish law!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.