RE: PEACE?: Gotta love those polls!

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 00:50:24 MST

  • Next message: spike66: "Re: My Blind Spot"

    Alex writes

    > My view of the current [American] President is that
    > he was not elected by the people and should never
    > have made it to the White House.

    Nonsense. He played by the rules which, in our case
    are in accordance with the Electoral College. Or are
    you talking about the hotly contested Florida election?
    Well, someone had to decide who was going to be president
    (i.e., how the rules were going to be interpreted because
    in the U.S. the time is long past where mere innocents
    can know what the law says). It turned out that it was
    going to be either the Florida Supreme court, or the
    U.S. Supreme Court, and the latter ruled against the former.
    That's all.

    > This is all an aside as my original post was simply a
    > question as to "how do you remove a person from elected
    > office in the US?" My question was in order to give me
    > a better understanding of what safety guards are in
    > place to stop someone like Any President from doing
    > something utterly mad?

    The President can be impeached, (which means that a certain
    kind of vote takes place. Clinton was the only president
    since the time of the Civil War to be impeached. After this
    step, he can legally be removed from office, though I am
    foggy on the details.

    > For example, breaking international law, illegally invading
    > another country or even forcing the country to follow a
    > course of action that is against the wishes of the majority
    > of the public and could conceivably start a second cold war.

    First, no president (or Prime Minister for that matter) ever
    gets elected who is not a "team player". So in true cases
    of delusional behavior or incipient insanity, the leader in
    question alienates his own people first. No President can
    order, for example, the arrest of a Congress person; the order
    simply would not be carried out by any sane General.

    Second, one does *not* want---as you seem to suggest---that
    the PM or President instantly respond to what "a majority
    of the public" wants. The majority of the people is a
    fleeting thing, a mob often prone to demagoguery or to being
    taken in by surface appearances.

    When you write "international law" and "illegally" invading
    another country, you seem to be suggesting that national
    sovereignty no longer exists. That is, of course, far from
    the truth.

    Lee



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 00:50:55 MST