| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
 Posted - 26 March 2003 : 22:26:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
I don't agree. If a representative is not representing people adequately and his/her actions are such which are harmful to their interest, they don't have to suffer and wait until next election.
Maybe not where you live, but here they do. |
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
 |
|
|
GauravBhabu
Advanced Member
4288 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 22:45:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
I don't agree. If a representative is not representing people adequately and his/her actions are such which are harmful to their interest, they don't have to suffer and wait until next election.
Maybe not where you live, but here they do.
It was not about where I live. It is about how it should be or how it is. However, the second part of your statement can be read either way < and more so by most literate readers >.
|
Edited by - GauravBhabu on 26 March 2003 22:53:10 |
|
|
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 23:05:58
|
quote:
they don't have to suffer and wait until next election.
Where?
Under what system?
If you wanted to express what you claim now then you should have written "they should not have to..." |
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
|
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 23:11:29
|
Under our system, the US Constitution. We (the citizens) do have the power to kick out elected officials mid term. I cant remember the exact term for it, but I remember discusing it in my civics class in high school.
Go look it up  |
 Nathan Bales
CoreBoard | Active Users Download |
|
|
|
GauravBhabu
Advanced Member
4288 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 23:22:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
I don't agree. If a representative is not representing people adequately and his/her actions are such which are harmful to their interest, they don't have to suffer and wait until next election.
Maybe not where you live, but here they do.
Tell me it is correct or incorrect, if your statement should be read as below:
they do have to suffer and wait until next election.
|
Edited by - GauravBhabu on 26 March 2003 23:25:00 |
|
|
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 23:37:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
Tell me it is correct or incorrect, if your statement should be read as below:
they do have to suffer and wait until next election.
Yes, that is correct.
You can read it that way, and if I had wanted to exclude that option I would have worded it differently.
You trying to teach me literacy is somewhat like me trying to teach you ASP code... |
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
|
|
|
GauravBhabu
Advanced Member
4288 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 23:49:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
Under our system, the US Constitution. We (the citizens) do have the power to kick out elected officials mid term. I cant remember the exact term for it, but I remember discusing it in my civics class in high school.
Go look it up
If I am reading the correct document, Citizens do not have the power to kick out the elected official but public opinion may force the elected member to resign...
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_documents&docid=f:hd216.106
quote:
23. In the event of the death, resignation, or declination (refusal to
serve) of a Member of Congress, how is the vacancy filled?
The Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 4) requires
that all vacancies in the House of Representatives be filled by
election. All States require special elections to fill any
House seat that becomes vacant during the First Session of a
Congress. Procedures governing vacancies occurring during the
Second Session of a Congress differ from State to State, and
are largely dependent on the amount of time intervening between
the vacancy and the next general election.
In the Senate, when a vacancy occurs for any reason, the
17th Amendment directs the Governor of the State to call an
election to fill such vacancy, and authorizes the legislature
to make provision for an immediate appointment pending such
election. Among the States, only Arizona does not allow the
Governor to make interim appointments, requiring, instead, a
special election to fill any Senate vacancy. Prevailing
practice in the States is that a special election to fill the
vacancy is scheduled to be held at the time of the next
statewide general election.
24. How can Members of Congress be removed from office or punished for
misconduct?
It is generally understood in Congress that the impeachment
process stipulated in the Constitution, which involves both
House and Senate actions, applies only to the removal of the
President, Vice President, Supreme Court Justices, and Federal
judges, and civil officers of the U.S. Government, and not to
the removal of Members of Congress from office. The
Constitution states that ``Each House shall be the Judge of the
. . . Qualifications of its own Members . . . [and may] punish
its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and with the Concurrence
of two thirds, expel a Member.'' Thus, disciplinary actions
taken against a Member are a matter of concern for that House
acting alone.
Each Chamber has established a committee charged with
reviewing allegations of misconduct against its Members: the
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Senate
Ethics Committee. The Rules of the House and Senate also
contain a Code of Official Conduct. The ethics committees
review charges against a Member filed by another Member or by a
private citizen.
The most severe punishment that can be imposed by either
the House or Senate is the expulsion of the offending Member.
This action requires, constitutionally, an affirmative vote of
two-thirds of the Members of the Chamber voting, a quorum being
present. Alternatively, the House may vote to ``censure'' a
Member for misconduct. This requires only a majority vote, and,
under party rules in the House, a censured Member automatically
loses any committee or party leadership positions held during
that Congress. In the Senate, the terms ``censure'' and
``denunciation'' are used almost interchangeably for violations
of this magnitude.
A less severe form of disciplinary action in both the House
and Senate is a ``reprimand,'' again imposed by a Chamber by a
simple majority vote. Typically,reprimands are reserved for
ethical violations that are minor, or appear to be inadvertent or
unintentional on the part of the Member.
Additionally, Members of Congress are subject to
prosecution for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
Generally, when a Member has been indicted for a felony, a
``leave of absence'' from any party or committee leadership
position must be taken so long as the charges are pending.
Usually, the House or Senate will not initiate internal
disciplinary action until the criminal proceedings against the
Member have been completed.
|
Edited by - GauravBhabu on 26 March 2003 23:58:16 |
|
|
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
Posted - 27 March 2003 : 00:03:09
|
This is a good lesson in the American constitutional system, but of course has no bearing on our dicussion.
It takes more than a disgruntled section of voters to impeach a representative.
If the voter simply changes his opinion of his chosen candidate, he will have to choose more carefully next time. |
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
|
|
|
GauravBhabu
Advanced Member
4288 Posts |
Posted - 27 March 2003 : 00:11:20
|
| The process to elect representatives works more or less the same way in most democratic countries. |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 27 March 2003 : 00:11:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
Under our system, the US Constitution. We (the citizens) do have the power to kick out elected officials mid term. I cant remember the exact term for it, but I remember discusing it in my civics class in high school.
Go look it up
It's called impeachment, Nathan. Nice to know that you didn't sleep through Civics. |
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
GauravBhabu
Advanced Member
4288 Posts |
Posted - 27 March 2003 : 00:15:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
Under our system, the US Constitution. We (the citizens) do have the power to kick out elected officials mid term. I cant remember the exact term for it, but I remember discusing it in my civics class in high school.
Go look it up
It's called impeachment, Nathan. Nice to know that you didn't sleep through Civics.
I think the process is called "Writs of Election"
Article I Section 2 Clause 4.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html |
|
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
Posted - 27 March 2003 : 00:18:20
|
No, I'm talking about a Recall. Its legal in 16 states, and will be legal for the fedral representitives if the ammendment gets passed.
The difference between an impeachment and a recall is that its the voters who do the recall. In Arizona, if 25% of the voters who voted in the election sign a petition then a reelection is mandated. (An impeachment is done by other representatives)
I should hope I would know about impeachments without a civics class  |
Nathan Bales
CoreBoard | Active Users Download |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 27 March 2003 : 00:59:36
|
quote:
Try reading my post again and if you still need help...please ask..
Your help is requested.
I have read your post and answered with a fact of my own (as well as a memorable quote from Ike).
Is Iraq worth $75 billion dollars? I have yet to hear anyone answer that one, except maybe Alfred, who agrees that Iraq isn't worth $75 billion dollars.
Many have argued that it isn't about oil and weapon sales, and I'd agree. There's no way we're going to recoup $75 billion dollars in money from oil/weapon profits anytime soon.
Is it about Iraqi freedom? Freedom for Iraqis is irrelevant. Unless they go out and get it themselves by overthrowing their own dictator, they're not going to appreciate it. Even if we give it to them, what's going to happen when the next homegrown Saddam Hussein tries to take it away again. They certainly aren't going to fight for it, since they didn't have to fight for it in the first place. Are we going to go back in and get it for them? No, not unless they try to build weapons of mass destruction.
We're invading Iraq to prevent terrorists from getting WMD from Iraq? The western media has widely reported that a pair of Pakistan's preiminent nuclear scientists have MET with Osama Bin Laden. The US State department reports that Pakistan has given North Korea nuclear weapon technology in exchange for balistic missiles. If proliferation of WMD is the issue, we should be invading Pakistan. It's right next to Afgahanistan, we might even find Bin Laden in the process.
Israel is widely acknowledged to have nuclear weapons and I don't see Bush putting pressure on our Israeli friends to give them up? Don't tell me those nuclear weapons are for Israeli security. There isn't an army or combination of armies in the Middle east that could lick the Israelis in battle. Those nukes sure aren't keeping the Palestinians from suicide bombing Israel on a regular basis either.
I conceed that Hussein is a dictator who persecutes the Iraqi people. I agree that Hussein has not cooperated with the UN and is probably developing WMD. There's a short fat dictator in North Korea doing the same thing and the tone from the Bush administration is decidedly different.
That being said, I still don't think full out invasion is the best solution. A 2000lb. JDAM, B2 bomber, and a few million dollars to the person who would tell us Saddam's location would take longer, but get the job done the job just as well. We don't have to kill the next dictator that takes over after Saddam. We just have to get him to understand that if he lets the UN inspectors in and doesn't develop WMD, we'll leave him alone just like every other petty dictator in the world.
|
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
Edited by - seahorse on 27 March 2003 02:47:38 |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 27 March 2003 : 01:09:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nathan
No, I'm talking about a Recall. Its legal in 16 states, and will be legal for the fedral representitives if the ammendment gets passed.
I should hope I would know about impeachments without a civics class
Sorry, Nathan. You said "kick out" and my mind naturally turned towards impeachment. Still it's good to know programming isn't the only thing you pay attention to. |
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 27 March 2003 : 01:54:08
|
seahorse,
I agree with you on these statements. What troubles me is that I really can't understand why the US government and so many Americans support a war like this. I can understand poeple supporting the troops but not the attitude to support the government, esp in a country like the US. You know it's the tricks that my government always does to confuse government, country and people, and that's considered brainwash, now I can understand why it works, as it works in the US, the most free, democratic country in the world. Well, I know it's not the same brainwash or maybe mrather implicitness or arrogancy or another word cannot be described well by my limited vocabulary, it's the same result, unfortunately.
No I'm not the judge I just failed to see the facts some people claim to have, even I have them, I still fail to see the logic to have such a war.
Well I don't want people die for both sides but maybe if the US loses more in the war (if it's not enough now) some Americans will think about it further, their system, the US relationship with international community and their attitude, etc. just like what's happend in and after the war in Vietnam. I don't know if it's fortunate or the contrary. 
Heynow777, would you please summerise or list the facts you have? and what facts you want from others, I'm afraid that I failed to see them. This is not personal, but I'd like to see do you think the US government does do propaganda and censorship (I don't mean the one like the POW and similar things)
minor amendment |
Edited by - bjlt on 27 March 2003 01:59:00 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
