You're viewing a single thread.
I mean, that position worked so well for Liz Truss!
(It's times like these I really wish the US had a parliamentary system, where the party can ditch an albatross leader.)
I really wish the US had a democratic process for removing a member of the federal government.
Some states can have recall votes for governor but there's nothing like that at the federal level, is there?
The other "democratic removal process" is impeachment for crimes, but we've seen what happens with that nowadays.
The UK dumped impeachment a couple of centuries ago, deciding legal matters should be decided by the courts, not politicians. Unfortunately with the terrorism he directs at judges who don't kowtow to him, and the likes of Aileen Cannon peppering the system, even the judiciary can't be relied on. ☹️
It makes me wonder why the founding fathers left that out.
I know a large reason we don't have a direct democracy is because they didn't trust the general population to not fall victim to a tyrant (which is super ironic).
I'm curious if the system was intentionally designed so that the only way the people can remove someone was through violence, or if they thought 2A would prevent the need.
They had the relatively recent events of the English Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution to remind them of the occasional need to remove a head of state (pun intended).
But in those cases, the legislature (Parliament) was the instigator and antagonist of the fight against a tyrant. I guess they never imagined the legislature (Congress) becoming the faithful/cowed lapdog of a tyrant that would consistently fail to use the power the constitution gives it.