The "Unhappy Birthday" Impeachment Movement Against A President: Would It Work?

[SilentScope001]

President Bush is a lame duck.

 

However, his lameness does not mean that I shouldn't stop looking for methods to help get rid of Bush's successor in case I don't like him (or her). If I have to. If I have no other choice, you know.

 

The way I see it is that I could start one of those "Impeach [iNSERT NAME HERE]" Movement. Someone figures out that [iNH] commiteed a crime, and because he commited a crime, he must therefore be kicked out of office. If I convince a majority of people that [iNH] commited a crime, then prehaps the HoR may vote to acutally impeach [iNH], sending it over to the Senate where [iNH] will be promptly aquitted. But the ensuring trial will damage [iNH]'s repuation and may very well ensure [iNH]'s party loses the next election.

 

All I just need is an actual, legit charge that can easily be proven in a Court of Law. I was able to easily find evidence that George W. Bush broke the law by listenting to people sing Happy Birthday and condoning such behavior, which is a blantat example of 'copyright infringment', and therefore, a candinate for impeachment. The idea is a perfect failsafe, it is suprising how many politicans willfully and pubically disregard the law by singing Happy Birthday, so it shouldn't be too hard. (In the end, however, such charges would have to hinge on the exact words that were sung. If someone says: "For he's a jolly good fellow" instead of the exact words of Happy Birthday, then he did not break the law.)

 

You can always look at other charges too if that one doesn't stick. For example, Obama admitted to illegal drug use. If Obama wins the Presidency, could I argue that since Obama has used drugs, he has broken national laws, and therefore should be impeached (Bush and Clinton denied ever using drugs, so I won't be seen as hypocritical too). The problem is that likely enough, it has long passed the 'statues of limitations', but "breaking the law"="bad" no matter what, according to the Consitution, right? Another problem is that we only have Obama's word that Obama has used drugs, if Obama lied about taking drugs, then I got no case whatsoever.

 

The last thing I want to do is to allege something POLITICAL. Doing so would easily damage my impeachment case. Stating that Bush lied about the Iraq War is contversial, and will lead to huge debates. However, stating that Bush frequently support the illegal use of Happy Birthday is not under debate, is not political, and can be condemned by all people of the political spectrum.

 

The problem however with all these charges is that by doing so, I may be forgetting the point of the "Impeach Bush" Movement, and its future kin. It seems that they might exist to galvanize the base, to try and ensure that they vote for the party who is not [iNH]. My goal in any Impeachment Effort is to simply get [iNH] out of Office, because I hate him/her.

 

Um. Any tips, in the rare case I may be compelled to pull off such a movement?

[Inyri]

Well I have to say that you better not rain on my birthday parade.

 

In any case, public singing of Happy Birthday may fall under fair use, so it may not be illegal at all.

[MJ-W4]

"It is a well-known fact that those people who want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams

 

How's that for a suggestion?

[Tommycat]

ASCAP says that its only for professional performances that royalties have to be paid. At least that's what they said after the whole Girl Scouts campfire incident went public.

 

It does bring up the whole Cover Band thing... How many of them are paying royalties for those songs....

[Aeroldoth]

"Happy Birthday" is owned by AOL-Time Warner, copyrighted through 2030.

 

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

[Darth InSidious]

"Happy Birthday" is owned by AOL-Time Warner, copyrighted through 2030.

 

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

Until 2030.

 

Please, let's get our grammar and syntax rite.

 

Or at least, the gunner and semtex...

 

But I digress.

 

@SS: Surely that depends. I don't know what the exact position of the law is in the US, but here in the UK it's possession and dealing in drugs which are illegal not having done them.

 

Also, you are one person. They command enough people - and money - that if they can't get a lawyer able and willing to kick you out of court (and into the ground until you can never rise again), they can at least fix the court to their advantage.

 

Finally, of coruse, you're going to need a charge a bit bigger than copyright infringement or having taken drugs to convince ~120m people that this guy has got to be gone. Try genocide - but not on Bush, because the public is sick of such accusations. An attack of that kind on Obama by contrast, might just be sufficiently novel to gain something more than apathetic irritation.

 

To conclude? Wait until Bush is out of office, whoever it will be is elected, and they make their own mistakes. If all else fails, remember that no President can last more than 8-10 years.

[Mace MacLeod]

Um, considering that Bush will be out of office long before any impeachment charge brought by a private citizen will get anywhere near a courtroom, that's a bit like closing the barn doors after the horses have run outside, frolicked on the pasture, got picked up by poachers, sent to a glue factory, rendered, bottled, and then wound up in a kindergarten crafts project involving sparkles, paper plates, and dried beans.

 

In other words, a noble idea, just a teeny bit too late.

 

Happy Birthday...?