Is There Not Provision In The Constitution To Remove bush?

who am i, i've always wanted to know

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

You mean to tell me there's no way to relieve bush of command? Surely somewhere our founding fathers had the foresight to know there was a possibility of a president becoming progressively more mentally unstable and needing to be removed before he used his power to f*ck the whole country?

Do you ever see anything good our President has done?

djjd62 wrote:

who am i, i've always wanted to know

I'm not going to tell you who you are, you have to figure it out.

LoneStarMadam merrily asked a question. Why is asking questions seen so negative by most of you? There was no suggestion, only a question. Just like Bi-Polar Bear asked a reasonable question, for whatever reason, it was just a question.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

djjd62 wrote:

who am i, i've always wanted to know

I'm not going to tell you who you are, you have to figure it out.

, after i said i liked you, you won't even help me discover who i am

i'm crushed

This possibility that Bush could be removed from office on the grounds of being mentally incompetent to perform his duties as President was discussed in July 2005 by Jeffrey Steinberg in his article The Plame Affair: Rove and Cheney Are Guilty As Charged:

Quote:

Twenty-fifth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section four: Involuntary withdrawal
It is also possible for the Vice President, together with a majority of the heads of the executive departments (that is to say, members of Cabinet) or of such other body as Congress by law provides, to declare the President disabled. The provisions of section four have never been invoked. An "involuntary" withdrawal may be declared for a variety of reasons. The most likely scenario, and the primary purpose of section four, is incapacitation. This results in both the inability of a president to discharge the duties of his office, and his inability to provide a written declaration to that effect. It is possible, however, for such a declaration to be made even if the president is fully able and conscious, should the majority of his officers find grounds other than medical disability, such as insanity, emotional instability, or conflict of interests, affecting national security. In any event, the president would continue to discharge the powers and duties of his office until Congress had reviewed the case and voted to strip the president of his powers, thereby preventing the president's officers from exploiting section four to stage an easy coup. The President may resume his duties by a written declaration sent to the President pro tempore and the Speaker. If the Vice President and Cabinet, however, are still unsatisfied with the President's condition, they may within four days of the President's declaration submit another declaration that the President is incapacitated. Congress must decide within 21 days the issue; a two-thirds vote in each House is required to permit the Vice President to assume the Acting Presidency. For the remainder of his term, the elected president remains the President (and the acting president remains the Vice President) albeit stripped of his powers and duties, and he may compell Congress to review his competence at any point in order to resume his duties.

tryingtohelp wrote:

LoneStarMadam merrily asked a question. Why is asking questions seen so negative by most of you? There was no suggestion, only a question. Just like Bi-Polar Bear asked a reasonable question, for whatever reason, it was just a question.

It isn't the question, it's just that some of them don't have answers so they attack whatever is handy. :wink:
Their favorite thing to do is say don't feed the troll, it gets them attention don'cha know.
However, the photo did show that someone had been slain, connect that to the topic &, well, it seemed obvious, but I could be wrong.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

You mean to tell me there's no way to relieve bush of command? Surely somewhere our founding fathers had the foresight to know there was a possibility of a president becoming progressively more mentally unstable and needing to be removed before he used his power to f*ck the whole country?

Do you ever see anything good our President has done?

djjd62 wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

djjd62 wrote:

who am i, i've always wanted to know

I'm not going to tell you who you are, you have to figure it out.

, after i said i liked you, you won't even help me discover who i am

i'm crushed

I'm doing that for your own benefit, how will you learn if someone keeps giving you the answers?

Ah, suggesting assination?

Strom Thurmond could't even be proven mentally incompetent, nor can Bobby Byrd, fat chance that Bush will be.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Strom Thurmond could't even be proven mentally incompetent, nor can Bobby Byrd, fat chance that Bush will be.

Hell, Reagan WAS mentally incompetent his last few years in office and all they did was pin labels on everything so he'd know the names of his staff and the Cabinet.

So, basically, you want to negate an election because you don't like the result. Or maybe you figure that anyone who holds political opinions different from yours is mentally ill. Essentially, you're a fascist, in the sense that you really don't believe in letting an election decide who is in office. What a pity that present day liberalism has deteriorated to this point.

Butrflynet wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Strom Thurmond could't even be proven mentally incompetent, nor can Bobby Byrd, fat chance that Bush will be.

Hell, Reagan WAS mentally incompetent his last few years in office and all they did was pin labels on everything so he'd know the names of his staff and the Cabinet.

& of course you have proof of that....

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Ah, suggesting assination?

Yes. In fact, I think might be the best way to defeat the terrorists. You see, what we do is, we kill Bush, then we send his head over to whoever we have decided is the head of Al Quaeda this week, and we pin a note to his forehead saying, "This is how we deal with terrorists. You're next."

That would scare the f*ck out of those bastards, don't you think?

Oh, wait, You said "assinate." I don't know what that is. Nevermind.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Strom Thurmond could't even be proven mentally incompetent, nor can Bobby Byrd, fat chance that Bush will be.

Hell, Reagan WAS mentally incompetent his last few years in office and all they did was pin labels on everything so he'd know the names of his staff and the Cabinet.

& of course you have proof of that....

Yes I do, but I can't seem to get the link to work. :wink: