Answering Calls for Forcefully Removing Obama From The White House

I have been in an Email exchange between a friend of mine, and her friend who is a bit radical in her approach to removing Obama from office. The exchange is as follows, with today's final response by me at the end. . .

--------------

First Email: Can you respond to my good friend about taking obama out?  She is the one who I told you about who had the question about marching on DC and taking him out of office.  She is a true Patriot and worried sick about the direction of our Republic; as we all are.  She is, also, an Army Veteran. She is really upset.  Thanks, Doug!  I appreciate you help.

---
My first response: As according to the rules, we could impeach him through our representatives, or vote him out in the election. Also, be aware that to remove him by force would be for us to not only stoop down to the same level as those authoritarians, but also that would put Biden in office which is nearly as bad. Tea Party influence in the elections are powerful, as we saw in the mid-term of 2010. Have patience, and stay vigilant. The truth will win out in the end.

---

Her Questions: What would happen if there was a revolt by the people to take obama and biden out forcibly? Is this a Constitutional issue? Would this cause anarchy? It is my understanding that the Military can't use force on obama and biden, either. He won't be impeached.

---

My Response: Would you really want to take a course like that? Violence is a last resort. Violence only if they commit violence first.

---

Her Response: I agree, violence should be the last resort, but, it could come down to that, Doug. If he is re-elected, I have no doubt it will happen. I'm just being realistic based on what I hear other's say. The majority of the people in this country don't like the direction we are taking and are fearful that, if obama is re-elected, our Republic will no longer be a Constitution-based country, but, another pre-Revolutionary Great Britain or worse. I hope we can settle this in a non-violent manner, also. But, we love our guns, Republic and Constitution and that's what the driving force will be. Remember Lexington, MA.

---

Her Friend's Response: I'm really shocked at his response, and a bit unsettled.  It is my understanding (and I did take a semester of Constitutional law in law school) that an illegal usurper cannot be impeached, Jane.  That is reserved for LEGAL leaders (presidents and others in high positions).  The Constitution gave us, "the people", the absolute authority to get rid of any entity that is an enemy to our country -- foreign and domestic.  

Even IF your guy thinks he can be impeached . . . and that would "stoop us down to his level", so what?  I'd rather be lowered in level than watch my country die!!!  Also, who cares if Biden would be next.  He was likely chosen by Ovomit simply because he's mindless.  There's no way he would win an election.  And, who knows, maybe someone could bully him into at least pretending to be a leader until the elections.  

Are you sure this guy is an authority on the Constitution?  I'm so freaked out right now.  I believe we should march on DC at the earliest time we can!!!  Ovomit is supposedly 85% finished with our destruction.  Every minute counts!  In another month, we won't have a country to defend!

---

My final response. . .

Taking Constitutional Law in Law School did not teach you about the Constitution. It taught you what a bunch of judges think the Constitution says. You would have been better off never taking the course, in my opinion. The Constitution is not defined by case law, but by the original intent of the writers.


As for the idea that as a people we should storm the White House and forcefully remove the Usurper in Chief currently occupying the Presidency is both dangerous and irresponsible. We are a republic, not a democracy, which means this is not a nation governed by mob rule. It is our responsibility to affect government through our representatives, and the processes authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Your view that we should take up arms and use violence against the offending members of the U.S. Government right now is extreme, but my refusal to buy into it does not mean I embrace the opposite extreme, either.

Our nation's independence was achieved by the spilling of blood in a violent revolution and it may come to the point that a bloody conflict will be the only means to take back this country from the Marxists that currently occupy the halls of government.  Our right to bear arms is predacated on the concept that if the federal government should become tyrannical we the people would be able to take it back by force should such an eventuality become necessary. But such violent actions are a last resort, and we have not reached the point where such actions are necessary. And to be perfectly honest, Obama and gang are hoping for such an outburst. If a civilian militant operation was launched against the federal government the current group of liberal leftists would use it is an excuse to clamp down harder, make the voices of the states and Congress even more irrelevent, and tighten controls over our gun rights. Then, the hand of the people would be forced, and a violent conflict would ensue. It is my opinion that before such a scenario becomes inevitable, we should exhaust all other tools available to us first.

The American Revolution was not originally intended to be a war. The colonists hoped to come to a peaceful understanding with Britain, before taking military action. However, they also recognized the reality that bloodshed may be necessary. And the drive for independence remained fairly non-violent, with the exception of the act of spilling blood by British aggression in episodes like the Boston Massacre. In the end, however, the determination if the revolution was to be by peaceful means, or by military conflict, was not decided by the colonists, but by the British, when they came for our guns and ammunition in Concord, and were stopped short by a militia at Lexington Green. Even then, bloodshed was not intended by the colonists, but when a single shot rang out, and the itching fingers of the infantry pulled their triggers in response. At that point, the bloody revolution commenced.

Thomas Jefferson, after the creation of the central government by the U.S. Constitution in 1787, remarked that a revolution may be necessary once every twenty years. In fact, he is quoted as saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." He was not encouraging bloody revolution, but he was recognizing the potential tyranny of government, and the possible need for bloody revolution.

I am a firm believer that the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is to enable the populace to take up arms against the government, if necessary. Imagine how different history would be if the Germans had taken arms against Hitler before he confiscated them? The people exercising their right to bear arms in opposition to government can be dangerous, too. Look at the Russian Revolution, or the French Revolution. In an attempt to shed the shackles of tyranny, the people found themselves enslaved by a whole new kind of authoritarian madness. An armed revolution too early can be just as devastating as one carried out too late.

Knowing that a violent revolution should be our last resort, through the Constitution the Founding Fathers gave us three other avenues to utilize as well. They recognized the importance of the will of the people, but like every other part of our system, decided to divide the power of the people, too. This is not a country governed by the rule of man, but one that is designed to follow the rule of law.  Contrary to the beliefs of the liberal left, the rule of law is not supposed to be based on the opinions of a bunch of judges, but upon authorities granted by the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. So, the people are free to demand that their government act in a certain way, but like the government they are supposed to follow the processes set forth by the Constitution.

The ways to take back America, in addition to a bloody revolution, are through peaceful revolution, nullification, and an Article V. Convention. The problem, however, is that the problems with government are not only at the federal level. Without some kind of control over our local governments, how do we expect nullification, or an Article V. Convention, to even be possible? If we can't even be involved locally, how do we expect to change things nationally?

That is where the peaceful revolution comes in.

The Tea Party Movement is an example of a way to conduct a peaceful revolution. The influence of the Tea Party in the 2010 mid-term election was phenomenal, not just at the national level, but locally as well. Nobody expected the movement to have such an impact. The landslide win by the GOP in that election, both nationally, and State-wide, was incredible. Once we get our States back in line, and we stop the bleeding at the federal level, then nullification and an Article V. Convention can be used.

The Constitution is the solution, if we just know how to use it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary