I’m not sure I understand this specifics of your question. Because in the context of our ongoing exchange, definitions matter.
By “any of Iran’s leaders” are you referring to the shah, or the prime minister? And by “overthrowing” do you mean by constitutional means, unconstitutional means, or either?
Furthermore, who are you suggesting would do the overthrowing based on the violation of the constitution by a leader? The people of Iran? Or outside forces?
Finally, in your scenario I would need to know how severe these violations of the constitution would be to pass judgment on the validity of a removal from office as a result of those transgressions.
I might also add that it seems only fair that you would answer my questions before you ask other questions of me.
As for answering any questions about the constitution itself, it was pretty much ignored by all leaders when it was convenient. Do you think that's any of our business, or an internal affair?