Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Prof's Protest: Constitution Makes It Too Hard to Bounce Bush
Los Angeles Times/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

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?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; constitution; impeachment; noconfidence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: governsleastgovernsbest
Levinson focuses on the "un democratic" aspects of the the Constitution.

I would just point out that the Constitution does not describe a democracy, but rather a representative Republic. The word "Democracy" nor any variant of it do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

I would say that if anything, we suffer from a perversion of the Constitution to inject too much democracy (ie. One man one vote requirements imposed on the states by the Courts, even though the federal government is not established on that basis)

41 posted on 10/16/2006 11:19:48 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Dear Professor,
You had your chance in 2004. Your party opted to nominate an absolute buffoon for President and an even bigger ambulance chasing jackass for VP. You lost. Better luck next time.


42 posted on 10/16/2006 12:21:37 PM PDT by JacksonCalhoun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

If only it hadn't been so hard to depose Clinton.

Oh, you mean liberals weren't bothered by that?


43 posted on 10/16/2006 12:24:40 PM PDT by Tall_Texan ("Journalislam" - reporting about murderous extremists as if they are moral equivalents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

You know I always thought that the university system would be much better if it were not saddled with tenure. I wonder how the good professor feels about a vote of no confidence applicable to law professors?


44 posted on 10/16/2006 12:26:19 PM PDT by DOGEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GATOR NAVY
My fruity next door neighbor in Virginia had a bumper sticker with something to the effect of how he couldn't wait until January 21st 2009.

I guess he really wants George Allen to be the next president. ;)

45 posted on 10/16/2006 12:30:08 PM PDT by usapatriot28
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I'm sure this liberal jackass has given careful thought to the obvious likelihood that Truman (Korea), JFK (Bay of Pigs), LBJ (Vietnam), Carter (super-malaise), and Clinton (everything), all would have been turned out of office under his ideal system (they all hit major crises of confidence, and of course Clinton had a solid House majority vote for impeachment)..... typical moron of the left, who only wants to rave and rage against Bush, and not think things through.

Come to think of it, maybe we DO need to be able to turn Demagogue presidents out of office more easily!!


46 posted on 10/16/2006 12:31:52 PM PDT by Enchante (There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Drive-By Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Buck up, professor. It's only a mere 15 months till we bid Bush farewell, and inaugurate . . . Newt?
It's only 15 months until 2009? Time flies!


Another 101 math session in your future?


47 posted on 10/16/2006 12:51:47 PM PDT by munin (The war on muslim terror=world war 3 time to let's roll Time to lube our guns with pork fat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
I don't see what the problem is. If the Constitution is a living document like they all believe, then why don't they just say that it allows them to force Bush out and be done with it?

I'm sure they can find a penumbra emanating somewhere in the Constitution.

-PJ

48 posted on 10/16/2006 12:52:04 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
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.

The GOP holds both houses of Congress. What makes him think that Bush would lose a no-confidence vote?

49 posted on 10/16/2006 12:53:21 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

What are your thoughts on the "no confidence" option vs. fixed terms of office?


50 posted on 10/16/2006 1:02:03 PM PDT by Steve0113 (Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -A.L.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve0113
It's not appropriate for your system. The chief executive of Britain is also a member of Parliament. In your system the Head of State is a completely separate branch of government.

Regards, Ivan

51 posted on 10/16/2006 1:05:38 PM PDT by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

actually this has become part of the left's desire for a "shadow government" like england.

The party that looses is actually made the "minority government" or shadow government. They appoint their own shadow cabinet with shadow ministers who basically are the runners up.

This means it is proportional representation not winner take all like the USA. This is why kerry, hitlary, billclinton,algore, madalin albright, and especially jimmy carter go to these nations as if they represent the USA. They are abusing the ignorance of the europeans to think that somehow the minority is actually relevant to government.

One of the assets of US government is that we DON't have mob rule like the english or french who can oust a president instantly with political manipulation. Our government is more stable.

Look at the italians, only the very recent memory have then not switch governments monthly.


52 posted on 10/16/2006 1:11:54 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

It would be impossible here, given the separation-of-powers design of the government, as you say. I was curious about whether it seems to you a satisfactory way to retain or dismiss a Prime Minister. The option of keeping a popular PM indefinitely is balanced by the option of removing him or her at any time, correct? Doesn't that make the PM completely vulnerable to popular whim?


53 posted on 10/16/2006 1:31:12 PM PDT by Steve0113 (Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -A.L.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Steve0113
Tradition and the internal structure of political parties prevents a quick removal of a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has to be seen as a liability by his own party in order to be removed in the middle of his term. This doesn't happen often enough to worry too greatly about.

Regards, Ivan

54 posted on 10/16/2006 1:33:34 PM PDT by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
The Constitution that gives us a chance every four years to turn out a president, gives us *no* say about just-as-powerful, elected-for-life judges. But Levinson has nothing to say about that egregious state of affairs. He *likes* them you see.

Lefties are such hypocrites.

55 posted on 10/16/2006 1:40:17 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

The UK does not have proportional representation. UK parliamentary elections are "first past the post" meaning a plurality is required to win each seat.

The Shadow Cabinet's purpose is to have an opposition member monitoring and criticising each member of the government front bench.


56 posted on 10/16/2006 1:49:09 PM PDT by GreenLanternCorps (The Solution to the GOP's Problems Isn't More Democrats!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: munin; Dog Gone

Dog gone was gently pointing out that in the original version of this column, I had written the sentence you are quoting, getting my math wrong as to the number of months till the presidential inauguration. Thanks to him I had it fixed here and at NewsBusters.


57 posted on 10/16/2006 1:49:45 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show since 2002 so you don't have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Look at the Italians, only the very recent memory have them not switch governments monthly.

Excellent point. The Italians government merry-go-round is a perfect example of the kind of flexibility the prof is pushing gone wild.

58 posted on 10/16/2006 1:52:16 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show since 2002 so you don't have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest; munin

I knew after you fixed it, that I was gonna be hanging out there.

If there's a next time, I'd probably be better advised to point out a problem using Freepmail. ;-)


59 posted on 10/16/2006 2:08:04 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

He is all for government by Gallup or Field Poll.

How about government by Free Republic poll! Restricted to known Free Republic members - D.U. not welcome.

I like that better.


60 posted on 10/16/2006 2:29:09 PM PDT by Prost1 (Fair and Unbiased as always!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson