Subj : Re: Larry King To : alt.tv.farscape From : Jim Larson Date : Thu Sep 01 2005 05:56:20 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape weirdwolf wrote: > Jim Larson wrote in > news:Xns96C3DB07E9FFE3v234oiwofui3284af93@130.133.1.18: > >> weirdwolf wrote: >> >>> "Finnigann" wrote in >>> news:43166C69.329.farscape@bnb.synchro.net: >>> >>>> To: weirdwolf >>>> -=> weirdwolf wrote to alt.tv.farscape <=- >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> we> OK say for example he had invaded a country for no reason.. >>>> we> damn..er..say for example it was found that he was a >>>> we> deserter....shit..ok.. third times the charm... say for example >>>> he lied we> to the senate...bugger this is more difficult than it >>>> seems... OOO I've we> got a good one.. say for example he had >>>> completely crippled the we> national eco..n..o.my... >>>> we> Right, fine, we will forget the reason why just imagine they >>>> wanted to we> force him out of office. Is there a way that they >>>> could do it and has we> it been done before? My rather dodgy memory >>>> and obvious lack of we> knowledge can't seem to come up with an >>>> example of it happening. we> Ted >>>> >>>> Nixon? >>> >>> Nixon wasn't forced out by his own party,he was staring impeachment >>> in >>> the face and fell on his own sword because he knew that he could >>> never put up a credible defence in the face of the evidence that had >>> mounted up.It was a case of outright criminal activity, I'm talking >>> more about a leader who has fallen out of favour with their own party >>> due to unpopular political decisions like Thatcher. >> >> Andrew Johnson. >> > > The only other president impeached right? the guy who had problems due to > his firing a chap whos name I forget in the war ministry without the > consent of the senate which was required because he had tenure. I know it > was more of an excuse because he had vetoed a few other bills to do with > reconstruction. See before 1945 so I at least know the basics. He was > aquited though despite breaking the letter of the law. That's the bunny. > I was wondering more about the case of them just falling out of favour, > not actually breaking the law. Say for instance that the unpopular vetos > were all that were available to Johnsons detractors without the ability > to impeach him for the law breaking in the case of the tenure > legislation not matter how tenuous it was is their a way that the > president could be removed? I don't think there's any provision to do anything of the sort. I think it's one of the fundamental differences between an elected presidency in a strong executive branch[1] vs. a premiership drawn from the legislature. -- Jim [1] And if you think what we've got is extreme, read any of Hamilton's contribution to the Federalist Papers. Some of them founding father dudes were a little loopy. .