Controlling Administrations you don't like

Volokh, Eugene VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Sat Nov 5 11:21:54 PST 2005


    I had thought Sandy was complaining about the lack of
*Congressional* removal.  Bobby, you seem to be talking about a national
voter-initiated recall, no?  I'm unaware whether such a system is
available at the national level in any industrialized democracy, but in
any event I'd be quite interested in hearing arguments for and against
it.  I think it would take some work, though, to persuade most list
members (perhaps including Sandy) that the absence of a voter-initiated
recall is a very serious defect in our Constitution.

    Eugene

-----Original Message-----
From: RJLipkin at aol.com [mailto:RJLipkin at aol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:59 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Controlling Administrations you don't like


       I'm not sure that I understand Eugene's response to Sandy.
Suppose it were clear that an overwhelming majority of the electorate
thought the Bush administration to be incompetent and dishonest, and
that these vices were causing death and destruction to vast numbers of
people and doing irreparable harm to the United States domestically and
internationally. Suppose further they believe that a better
constitutional structure would permit some sort of immediate action.
Yet, the President and the leadership in Congress turn a deaf hear to
this concern. What's Eugene's remedy?  And when will it become
effective? In other words, just what is the solution given the processes
of change authorized by the Constitution that the President's critics
"can get to right away"? 

      Perhaps, a superior constitutional design would not permit an
immediate, effective remedy. So the processes Eugene's post describes
cannot be offered as an immediate, effective remedy. Right? So if one
believes that such a remedy should be constitutionally available, then
at least for that individual our Constitution is defective. Right? The
argument then is which type of constitution is superior, not that our
Constitution offers an immediate, effective remedy. Do I understand
Eugene's post correctly?

Bobby 

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware


More information about the Conlawprof mailing list