Article V: An Alternative to Impeachment

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | August 6, 2014 | Rush Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So there is impeachment to deal with a lawless president, a lawless executive. But there is another way, and it is right in the Constitution. It's right there in Article V of the Constitution. Mark Levin has written a book about it called The Liberty Amendments, and essentially, you should read the book. The book explains the entire constitutional process and also contains some new amendments to the Constitution, the purpose of which is to simply affirm the Constitution as it was.

It's a shame that we're at this point, but the Liberty Amendments are simply amendments to restate the original purpose of the constitution and just pound it into everybody's head what the Constitution is. Article V allows for the states to establish a constitutional convention for the purposes of dealing with circumstances such as we are experiencing today. If the Congress will not impeach, it's right in Article V: The states have the power, if they want to do it.

I forget off the top my head, but it takes two-thirds or three-fourths. It's a big task, but the states have the power. (interruption) Well, no, no, no, no. This is not Al Sharpton calling a constitutional convention and rewriting it. That's not what this is. That was an original fear, by the way, that even Levin admits he had when looking into this. But an Article V convention, which is state-sponsored for specific purposes -- controlled by the states by virtue of the number of states required to put this ball in motion -- gives them control over the process.

I cannot possibly explain a full book to you here in a small monologue. The point is, there is another way of going about this. It's not as direct as impeachment would be, but the Republicans have taken that off the table (which is crazy). It's three-fourths of the states that would be required to establish a constitutional convention set up and run by the states, for the express purpose of amending the Constitution or enforcing it or dealing with circumstances such as that we're faced with today.

If Congress won't do it, the point is, the Founders established a way. The Founders... I don't want to get too esoteric here. The people that founded this country, by virtue of what they were doing, believed that corruption of people in powerful places was going to happen. They wrote of the importance of character and honor in powerful executives and elected officials, but they knew what human nature was.

They know the seductiveness of power and how easily powerful people could be corrupted. So they set various things up to counter this process. One of them was the three branches and the separation of powers, commonly called "checks and balances" in Civics 101 in the sixth grade. Well, the checks and balances have gone by the wayside right now. The Supreme Court doesn't check anything. The Congress isn't checking anything.

The Congress has given up its power to Obama. The Democrats in Congress particularly, for the moment, couldn't care less, because Obama's advancing their agenda. Their agenda matters more than the Constitution. So whatever Obama's doing and however he's doing it, fine and dandy. That leaves it to the Republicans. The Republicans aren't doing it for the whole host of reasons that we've been through over and over and over again.

So if Washington will not reform itself, if Washington will not employ the techniques built into the Constitution to preserve the Constitution, Article V provides a mechanism for the states to do it. It is a... I'm getting confused on two-thirds and three-fourths because I got people shouting in my ear here over what it is. I think it's three-fourths to ratify changes, two-thirds to get it going. Whatever. For the purpose of the discussion, that's incidental.

The fact of the matter is, it's still tough to do. You have to get two-thirds of the states, I believe, on board for one of these conventions, and then whatever they come up with requires three-fourths to ratify. But the point is, there is a mechanism. The Founders anticipated this kind of thing. They expected it, human nature being what it is. That's why this note that my brother got, I found so profound.

This woman didn't say this, but this is what she means: "For two hundred thirty eight years, how have we lucked out -- or have we lucked out? What is it that has kept us from becoming Venezuela? What is it that has prevented Idi Amin Dada or Hugo Chavez," as she cites, "from becoming president here? Is it the honor system? Is it that why people have respected the Constitution and voluntarily obeyed it, voluntarily stayed within its limits, or have there been enforcement mechanisms? Are there consequences?"

She doesn't know. She hasn't been alive for the whole time the country has been, so she wants to know: How has this happened? How have we stayed the way we are? That's the eternal question. It's where American exceptionalism comes into play in terms of explaining what it is. This is... Look, folks, this means so much to me. This is why I have endeavored to write children's books, to try to explain -- on a foundational level, at their level of understanding -- the miracle of this country.

'Cause it really is! The history of human life on this planet is bondage and tyranny. There wasn't rampant, abundant freedom. There wasn't rampant abundance of standards of living for "the masses." That was reserved for the despots and the tyrants and leaders of either populations or countries. This country was the first EVER to enshrine in its founding documents that the people are who make it happen.

The people are for whom the country was founded, rooted in individual liberty and freedom -- and that all of that freedom and all that liberty did not come and does not come from other people. It does not come from presidents or Congresses. It's not granted; it's not legislation. We're created that way. And all of this is just a smidgen of many of the reasons why we were able to become and remain a superpower in fewer years than European nations have existed.

It is really profound, the history of this country and how this country came to be. But more importantly: How did it sustain? Okay, we were founded in a certain way. There were people who opposed the founding from the get-go. But the people who opposed it and attempted to undermine it, were always defeated. They had little victories here and there, but in the end, America remained America.

But it was always under attack. It always has been under assault. It's always been under assault by people who don't believe in the founding, who believe the founding is unjust and immoral. That isn't anything new. What's new is that the people of this country elected someone who believes that for the first time ever. Well, maybe you gotta throw Woodrow Wilson in there. But even at that, we survived Woodrow Wilson, and we survived FDR.

Although some people would argue that, no, we haven't; we're where we are because of FDR's profound success. A case could certainly be made for that. But the point is the country has always been under assault, from within, from people who do not believe in it, who do not think that this country is fair, for example, or just, "Because not everybody has a house on the beach. Not everybody has a second home in the Hamptons. Not everybody," and for a host of other reasons, too.

When I stop to think about it, I'm amazed, actually, that this country has survived as it was founded for as long as it has, because there is this honor system, essentially. We have pretty much, throughout our history, had people who were deferential to the Constitution, that were deferential to the rule of law. Look at Nixon. People talk about Richard Nixon, and they seethe when they talk about Nixon.

They speak of Nixon with vile disgust and hatred.

Richard Nixon didn't have to resign.

Richard Nixon could have hung in and he could have caused hell and problems. He could have put the country through all kinds of trouble. If it ever had gotten to the impeachment of Richard Nixon... I mean, folks, back then we'd just come out of the Vietnam War. The Democrats were fit to be tied. Nothing they were doing was working. They'd had landslide losses and Democrats back then were like the Democrats today. Who knows what would have happened during impeachment!

It could have been forever change. Who knows what they would have done. The point I'm making is that Nixon, for the betterment of the country, threw himself on the sword. I know a lot of you people are gonna say, "What do you mean? He quit because he knew he didn't have a chance. He quit because he was gonna be found guilty and he was gonna be living in exile." Maybe, but Richard Nixon nevertheless is an example of somebody who deferred ultimately to the Constitution rather than put the country through the kind of chaos that would have ensued.

It's a small example, but it's one of the first that comes to mind. (interruption) Well, you could argue he did it again by stepping aside in 1960, because in 1960 the case could have been made at the time that that election was fraudulent in both West Virginia and Chicago, Cook County. Nixon could have fought it and probably could have won it. He decided to defer to the election process in order to not put the country through something like that. We don't have people like that right now.

The people right now in charge want to put the country through that crap. They delight in doing it. They delight in all this chaos because of where they think it's gonna end up. That's why I think there's a -- sorry to overdo the phrase. Maybe I should come up with a new word, but "futility" pretty much explains it. Exasperation, hopelessness, whatever. So many people instinctively know that what's going on is not how this country's always been. It's not how things happen. This is not what's supposed to happen.

This is not how a bad economy, for example, is dealt with. This is not how immigration is dealt with. This is not how superpower status, foreign policy, is dealt with. They instinctively know this is not right. And they're beginning to ask themselves, like this woman, how in the world have we stayed America all these years when there have been all of these efforts, powerful forces to undermine this country? And there have been. Is it really the honor system? Is it really human beings in the past totally deferential or afraid of consequences or whatever?

You could argue that there were a lot of people who were not deferential. They took it as far as they could, attempting to undermine. It's a constant fight. I'll tell you, I keep coming back to one thing, 'cause even though what's happening today may be an extreme example, these kind of things have been going on since the founding. It's just we've never elected one of those people, but this time we did, twice. What's missing is the push-back. What's missing is political opposition to it at the highest levels, and that feeds into the futility.

We have a Republican Party afraid to stand up for itself and do the right thing because they think the American people are gonna hold it against them. I mean, when I hear this, "We can't impeach Obama. Look what happened after we did it to Clinton." What a sorry ass excuse. What a sorry ass excuse. In the first place, it wasn't that bad for the Republican Party after the Clinton impeachment.

Bush won the White House, for crying out loud. We won the House and the Senate afterwards. This is asinine, that impeachment doomed the Republican Party after Clinton. It's as silly as this stupid notion that the only way the Republicans can ever win the White House now and ever again is to support amnesty? It's silly.

END TRANSCRIPT

[Publius]

Article V ping.

[factoryrat]

You can impeach obama all you want, it won’t do any good. He has the backing of 47% of the population (aka: the free shit army), millions of central american socialsts who overran the border, and the entire executive branch of alphabet soup agencies, loaded to the top with radical obamabots, at his disposal. And people wonder how a coup can be pulled off in a plain sight. And the worst part is, he will use alinsky tactics to make the other side play by the rules, and the other side will fall for it, while the obama regime shreds any and all rules in sight to achieve their goal. Bolshevik revolution redux, US style.

[fwdude]

So when some future Presidents ignores the “liberty amendments” what do you do then?

Exactly.

It's folly to think this "president" will have any regard at all for ANY amendments, past or future.

And we (Congress) have proven that they have no will to do anything about it.

[Jacquerie]

Good grief. Will you please read the amendment summary?

[Graewoulf]

Good discussion, thanks!

[Political Junkie Too]

Another Alternative to Impeachment.

Here is a perfectly constitutionally legal form of coup d'etat that can be used to oust Obama without going through a nasty impeachment process.

---

Amendment 25 Section 4

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

---

Imagine the following scenario.

1. Joe Biden organizes the principle Cabinet members to side with him and declares Obama to be unable to discharge his duties as president. He submits this signed declaration to Pat Leahy and John Boehner and assumes the Presidency.

1a. As an interesting variation, "either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" suggests that Congress can pass a law naming another body besides the Cabinet that can side with the Vice President. What if Congress were to pass a law allowing, say, a body of NYT and WaPo editors, ABC-NBC-CBS-CNN-MSNBC journalists, and college deans - a totally unelected body of people - to legally declare the president incapable of discharging his duties? What if Biden gets these "intellectual elites" to side with him to oust Obama?

2. Obama then fights back by sending a letter to Leahy and Boehner stating that he is not incapable of discharging his duties, and he declares that he has resumed the Presidency.

3. Biden then gets his supporting body to redeclare within four days that Obama is still unfit for office.

4. Once Biden redeclares that Obama is unfit, Congress must then assemble within 48 hours if in session, or within 20 days if in recess, and vote to accept Biden's declaration by 2/3rds vote, or to accept Obama's declaration that he is still fit for office.

5. Congress sides with Obama and declares Obama to no longer be President.

6. Joe Biden takes over as acting President of the United States.

Hey, I can fantasize, can't I?

-PJ

[SampleMan]

The problem is that written words have no power to act.

The Constitution only bars the actions of a majority which is moral. i.e. at the end of the day, following the Constitution is voluntary for the majority.

I’m waiting for the first SCOTUS decision that clearly states that the Constitution itself is an unacceptably binding document.

[Kaslin]

My pleasure

[dware]

...Those that didn’t move to Texas.

Lol. 3 words completely negate any good coming from Texas: Sheila Jackson Lee - If she can be elected in Texas, of all places, we are doomed.

[INVAR]

Good grief. Will you please read the amendment summary?

Good grief! Do you understand what we are dealing with or not??

Amendments MEAN NOTHING to a lawless regime and oligarchy.

How do you propose to implement any Amendment when this regime has stated it will ignore the Constitution and with help from the courts and the media declare the will of the people, "unConstitutional"???????

There IS NO CIVIL SOLUTION to reversing the coup we suffered. Do you get that truth or not???

If not - and if a majority think like you - then our fate as a Constitutional Republic is over.

[nitzy]

You missed the first part where I said "Article V ain’t gonna happen" Neither the people who sent the letters to blacks in Mississippi nor the Democrat fascists would be in favor of congressional term limits. Therefore any convention to propose term limits would be fought by the Oligarchy and their minions.

There is a 95% chance that there will never be any convention.

If, by some miracle of popular uprising (like the temporary delay of amnesty and scuttling of Harriet Miers) the Oligarchy is forced to call a convention, they will produce poisoned pill amendments that would never be ratified by enough states.

The only other option would be for the permanent installation of tyranny by taking the opportunity to ensure that the Oligarchy never has to open themselves up to shenanigans like Article V again. They could do this through a short term calculated and targeted operation with the help of local and national politicians, their friends in big data (Google, Twitter, Facebook), their friends in the mass media (MSNBC, Fox, CBS, CNN), etc...

Think of it as one last grandaddy of all PR stunts to convince us to sign away the farm.

You need to come to grips with the fact that like free market capitalism, the idea of self government was a fleeting, flash in the pan, 18th/19th century phenomenon, never to be seen again.

[c-b 1]

Good grief. Will you please read the amendment summary?

I did. I see nothing there that would force the lawlwss to follow the law.

INVAR is right there is no civil solution. The only solution is to quickly go back where the country started from. A massive revival in this country is the only way to fix this broken mess, I am not sure there is time for that.

[Repeal The 17th]

Thanks again for pinging.

[ForYourChildren]

great article.

I find this to be interesting, “in 1960 the case could have been made at the time that that election was fraudulent in both West Virginia and Chicago, Cook County. Nixon could have fought it and probably could have won it. He decided to defer to the election process in order to not put the country through something like that. We don’t have people like that right now.”

At this point today, I may disagree. If Nixon had fought it and won, then we wouldn’t be having the election corruption that we have today. Yes, it would have been painful for the country, but better to excise it when it is small rather than let it grow and become all consuming.

[upchuck]

What do you think 2.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, MRAP tanks and APCs to local police departments are for?

Let me answer your question with four questions:

1. How many guns do they have?
2. How many guns do we have?
3. How many people do they have?
4. How many people do we have?

Yes, they are better trained than we are and they have menacing equipment we don't have. But we will always have more people and more guns than they do.

Spend some time watching 'The Patriot.'

[huldah1776]

So when this convention convenes to get rid of the president, can they also get rid of the federal reserve?

[huldah1776]

“Have we become so evil that God has turned His back on us? I sure hope not.”

Did you know that God warned the Israelites not to do what the natives of the Promised Land were doing or He would have them invaded, too? Child sacrifice. God did not forgive the nation of Israel. Forgave the individual king who repented but judgment came later—70 years in Babylon.

[INVAR]

It doesn’t matter how many guns we have, or if we even have a gun.

What matters is whether or not we possess the will to use it.

When food and water will be used as a weapon to render a people to abject misery and privation, guns will be used for personal provision - not for organized resistance to tyranny.

In that, the Oligarchy has the advantage.

Human nature and history teaches that a people will betray their own flesh and blood for a mere promise of bread.

And make no mistake, those in power understand that tactic.

The number of guns means nothing. We do not possess a collective will to resist what the “Free shit army” will empower against us. if we did, we would not be where we are right now.

How many tens and hundreds of thousands of South Americans has Obama brought into this country in the last year? We bitch and moan - and are powerless to stop it.

God is the only One that can save our Republic now - and since we sat on our hands while we lost the culture in the name of ‘tolerance’, I would not expect Him to help us out.

We sealed our own fate - and dependence upon guns without righteousness and willpower is not going to restore liberty.

[bfh333]

And I would add “How many former VETS would side with US?”

The local police have families... Let’s see how committed they are when they have to worry about who’s protecting them...

[upchuck]

Thanks. I thought about Vets after I posted. They have experience we need. Maybe they’ll teach or share info.