March 10, 2013      
We are focusing on our petitions for "Hierarchy of Law" and "Fiscal Responsibility" to exclusion of almost everything else at this juncture since, without them, most everything else  -- save military efficiency and survival skills --  may become moot.
PLEASE: do the reading, consider signing the petitions.  You have very little to lose by doing so, and possibly  -- as we see it, almost assuredly --  everything to lose if you don't.

Do the reading; sign the petition(s); pass the word.    

We realize your time is valuable and respect you enough to give you an idea of how long this might take. Please keep in mind that this has not been provided as a 60-second TV spot, let alone as a soundbite. A reading speed of 200 wpm makes this "25th Amendment Revolution", including the Addendum and the notes at the end, about a 20-minute read.

This effort has been going on longer than we care to admit.
This page last updated September 22, 2011

added December 14, 2010

The 25th Amendment Revolution:

                     a brief potential history of TUSA in the 21st Century

What follows is neither a forecast nor a specific recommendation. Still –and this is the point— it could come about much as suggested here, in 2011; something vaguely similar might come about in some other year; or nothing like it at all might ever occur at all.

The results of the 2010 midterm congressional elections gave a substantial majority to the Republicans in the House of Representatives; the Republicans fell only a little short of taking control of the Senate as well. In conjunction with the fact that Democrats who won in the House were generally if not exclusively more liberal than those who lost, mixed signals were everywhere.

The ensuing lame duck session of Congress became, not just for Republicans, certainly "close" for significant concerns. Some of the issues that had been left unsettled prior to the election were: extension of tax cuts; repeal of “don't ask don't tell” in the military; the Dream Act -- wherein persons illegally in the country would be essentially granted at least conditional amnesty by enlisting in the military or registering for college; and the only semblance of a budget in place for what had already become a current fiscal year was that which had been “deemed” to have been passed.

Taking these four in turn:

The arguments about the extension of tax cuts seemed to largely revolve around phrasing; were these tax cuts, as some argued, or avoidance of tax increases, as others argued? What changes to the current tax schedules would be appropriate, and for whom, and for how long? Can we afford them?

The noised repeal of “don't ask don't tell” had a couple of major factors that got little attention in public: first, the repeal vehicle [legislation] had the repeal in the first few short paragraphs of seven or eight pages of material; second, the balance of the legislation was sure to wreak havoc on both morale and command structure.

Something generally missing from arguments surrounding the questions about the Dream Act was the equating of military service with enrolling in college; virtually no press -- and no apparent Congressional attention -- was given to the impacts of a lack of success in either, with respect to a given individual who might be granted the conditional amnesty.

In a normal budgetary cycle there were typically 13 huge bills that need to pass as part and parcel of creating a budget; the 111th Congress had apparently been too busy -- with things like more stimulus, total reform (not necessarily improvement) of Health Care (running into thousands of pages of material, with seemingly infinite references to other material) and a nearly as long and complex financial reform bill -- to pass even one of the 13 standard bills.... The Speaker of The House in a theoretically legal though at best questionable parliamentary maneuver, simply “deemed” the budget to have passed.

This set the stage for further disquiet in the 112th Congress that would start in January 2011. Republicans held the majority in one legislative chamber, but not the other; the majority —a slight majority but enough for control of the Senate-- was held by Democrats. On top of that, the judiciary was showing substantial influence from appointments by the most liberal president in perhaps 100 years...augmented by a rash of recess appointments and bolstered by an unusual number of lame-duck Senate approvals. It was apparent to many observers that even constitutional crises could be in the offing.

Certainly the Republican majority in The House, where all money bills have to originate, gave substantial power of a negative nature to the Republicans, in that they could potentially short-circuit much of the Democrat/Progressive legislative agenda: but not sufficient power to bring their own agenda to fruition. The Democrats could stymie the Republicans legislatively as well. But there was also the Presidency to consider. The Democrats had Obama in the White House, who almost assuredly would try for a second term in 2012; the Republicans had a lot of potential candidates -- most of whom had serious flaws -- and a lot of momentum from the midterms. But perhaps the worst of the situation for the Republicans was that the Democrat President was more and more often and more and more loudly encouraged to operate the government as he had demonstrated he was inclined to anyway, through forwarding his "Progressive" -- what some termed "Socialist" -- agenda by means of Executive Orders that bypassed the legislature entirely, what some have characterized as "Legislating from the oval Office" much as "activist” judges have been characterized as "legislating from the bench".

The Republicans, fueled in part by Tea-Partiers, became more and more aware of the reality that without at least scant majorities in both legislative chambers, preferably veto-proof majorities, the "opposition party" had little effective power with which to contend, let alone over, a President (despite the "Power of the Purse").

Some of the more politically active public discussed openly what could be done to hold back the Democrat/Progressive agenda. Such ideas were not likely to be discussed openly in the legislature or "establishment" of politics, if discussed at all, as much because of how many Republicans were largely “Progressive” in their thinking as because of how little could be done from the opposition position (and the minority, as well, in the Senate). And all elected officials had become conscious that whatever could be used against those In Power might come back to haunt when they held Power; while the establishment might not like “the other side” having Control of the Power at a given moment, they liked even less the idea of surrendering Power held by The Establishment, which at times they ruled.

One such idea was to get effective control of both Houses of the Legislature as soon as possible, finding a way to not have to wait for the next general election. It was thinking outside the box, which already gave it a certain allure for many, particularly amongst activists leaning to the right. But how?

With two Senators as Independents that might be prevailed upon to join the 47 Republicans, it would take at least two, most likely 4, or even 5 seats. At least one Republican having specified support for Obama's agenda, and at least 2 others having demonstrated strong sympathies in that regard, the total needed was brought to perhaps 7 to shift from Democrat to more-or-less reliably Republican, a seemingly impossible hurdle on the face of it. How could that be accomplished? Well, there was a potential to change perhaps one or two by finding enough "dirt" to force removal by embarrassment (hardly likely) or by criminal prosecution (conceivable, but taking too much time) or by the Senate itself (fat chance). Worse, such activity would surely have at least some backlash that could not be politically well-afforded, and thus might well doom any such effort from the start.

What else? What about concentrating efforts to unseat carefully targeted individual Senators, by recall? The lame-duck session would supply initial fodder for such cannon. Now, how to choose the targets? Of Democrat Senators from states that had recall provisions, some had just been elected or re-elected, making them more attractive in some ways (expected duration of replacement) but less in others (such questions having just been before the voters): others had terms ending in 2012, having much the same offsetting factors though in reverse. This left a half-dozen who had 4 years left in their terms and came from states that clearly had recall provisions that applied to them by state law -- though it was not clear how that might play out in federal Courts if the laws were challenged there, as they surely would be by the entrenched hierarchy -- and had come on board or last faced the electorate on Obama coattails...coattails that had been so shortened in 2010 that it seemed many if not most Democrats worked at avoiding being associated with them at that point. These last then seemed the best targets.

So a handful of targets were selected, petitions circulated, elections scheduled, even as federal court challenges were pursued; sitting Senators did not wish to face possible removal, particularly in the face of the obvious intent to change “control” of the Senate, and the Democratic Party was not inclined to relinquish control without a fight. Despite the founderings of the economy, amazing amounts of money flowed to campaigns, both pro and con. The hope of the Republicans was to win every one of the six [and more: 18 states had recall provisions, but only half specified that such provisions included federal officials and even those had not previously survived the Courts; but the can of worms had been opened, and Republicans sought to gain Court rulings that would extend recall to all elected officials throughout the nation, thus opening up their possibilities to take control immensely (instead of 6, they could go after every Democrat Senator in the class) and they held a tremendous advantage of a fallback position that winning even a few would give them operational control of both houses of the legislature…as well as a huge psychological advantage against the surviving Democrats, an advantage that might be parlayed into getting some of those survivors to lean to the right at least some times on some things.

While this was going on, moves were afoot in the opening of the 112th Congress to push hard for "a Balanced Budget Amendment", a more-or-less active goal for at least a quarter century. A number of variations were [as usual] offered. This is where things really started heating up, because the electorate had become far more interested, aware, and critical of things done in Congress through the first two Obama years (with Health Care, et al, being none-too-popular with "the people") and the coincident economic upheaval; everything was suspect. A number of proposals that had originated with individuals who were not politicians started getting more and more publicity. Some were parts of more ambitious proposals to amend the Constitution not just with respect to a balanced budget, but in a number of other ways as well. One in particular drew attention to its surrounding works; it took hold and was ultimately passed, despite considerable misgiving from the continuing members of Congress -- there had been a historically large freshman class elected in the 2010 midterms, and the recalls did in fact move control of The Senate into the hands of the Republicans -- because it had not originated there [what was the country coming to, that individual citizens might think they could provide government that was as good or even better -- well, certainly more popular -- than that provided by "the professionals"?]. Will Rogers is said to have commented that “with Congress — every time they make a joke it's a law. And every time they make a law it's a joke”. The freshmen of 2011 were determined to take a new course -- one that was essentially an old course -- of Honorable and ethical behavior.

The combined effects of the disruptions in Congress along with the uprising of continued "Tea Party" efforts pushing an agenda from outside Congress, led Obama to push the envelope of what he could do by fiat [Executive Order and other administrative measures]. This aggravated the efforts for recall, and within a few months of the seating of the new Congress it was apparent that impeachment proceedings were likely to be forthcoming. One fed upon the other, and while the numbers for conviction were very much still in question, the Republicans declared they would tie up government by defunding things and a succession of repeated articles of impeachment. A lot of political capital was spent; a lot of political blood spilled.

Finally, a Constitutional Crisis was guaranteed: the House, in concert with just enough of the Senate to get the job done, passed legislation in accord with the 25th Amendment that authorized Congress to create a body that could declare the President incompetent to fulfill the duties of the office. Obama vetoed it, and Republicans who knew they couldn't get the votes necessary to override the veto filed suit against Obama due to the conflict of interest he had with the legislation…that any President would have with such legislation. The Court ruled, through an assortment of maneuvers that required Obama appointees be recused from the case, in a 4-3 decision, that Obama, in fighting the legislation, had proven the point of the need for it and his own inability to rule for the good of the nation rather than for himself. The Courts ultimately ruled in favor of Congress [an early hurdle had been failure to get the Vice President to go along with the majority of the commission created by Congress: Congress then went to Court, insisting that the VP be required to go along with the commission, as process, because personalities and personal relationships create a conflict of interest for any VP involved/faced with such a situation]. The legislation creating the Constitutionally authorized body was ruled as legally binding, and Obama was removed from office the following afternoon.

In accord with the provisions of the 25th Amendment, Obama tried to fight his removal, but the judicial opinion converged with Republican admonitions that they would simply start the removal process all over again immediately should Obama somehow prevail in the first such move, and the “handwriting on the wall” (that had been read by the then-Vice President as well), and Obama reconsidered and resigned.

This made Joe Biden the 45th President. A man almost philosophically indistinguishable from Obama, many on the political right thought it little improvement. But there was that handwriting on the wall, and the need to pick a VP nominee that he could then get through Senate Confirmation, and as quickly as possible due to the approaching Presidential election and the Speaker of the House – the individual next in line to the Presidency behind the Vice President -- being a Republican. If the philosophies and numbers weren't enough trouble, there was so much anger and distrust on the part of the public that had been more witness to most of this than willing participants, that politicians hit a new all-time low in esteem; "the simple folks" largely hated them all.

In remarkably short order, a number of modifications were made to the federal government by way of Constitutional Amendment: several Amendments were incorporated in a single effort, reminiscent of the adoption of The Bill of Rights. Initially, Biden tried to veto measures that had passed both the House and the Senate, trying to prevent them going to States for ratification, but he found that even the Court that in many ways sympathized with his point of view could not go that far with him and the measures were sent to the States where organization had already been set up to have them ratified in a matter of weeks.

The resultant changes in the Constitution were more sweeping in some ways than any previous efforts to re-shape the government of the U.S., even while the general population came to agree with the assessment of the author of the bulk of the measures in calling them [appropriately] "Restoration of The Great Experiment".

The rest, as has been often said of many things, “is history”, with an ensuing associated economic recovery that led even further from difficulty, than the world had come to collapse, in the preceding few years. Along with that, the expanding opportunities and economies led other countries throughout the world to become less inter-dependent and more individually successful, that leading to political changes as well. In the course of less than 50 years, half the population of the world achieved a life-style so advanced that TUSA faced a new challenge: the immigration from the rest of the world, spurred by economic opportunity as much as political philosophy, slowed to a trickle, cutting into the edge TUSA had long enjoyed as recipient of a “brain drain” throughout the rest of the world.

TUSA survived, even thrived, but never resumed the pre-eminent position it had held in world politics and economics in the last half of the 20th Century: it became far more an equal. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this chapter in human history is that neither TUSA nor the rest of the world found any harm in that, humankind somehow making a leap forward in civilization that depleted envy and jealousy in ways and degrees previously only imagined in great religions.

"TUSA" is obviously a reference to "The United States of America" here, and is used much as SCOTUS is often used as a reference to the "Supreme Court of The United States [of America]; most readers, we suspect, figured that out right away. And most readers, we suspect, if they've gotten this far, are wondering about such a pipe-dream as this potential history and perhaps. just perhaps, which Senators might be targeted.

We will have more on this as time goes on and circumstances permit, and will post it as continuing commentary (with its own date) to this piece.

Each passing day seems to bring further evidence that the federal legislature needs the kind of shake-up and shifting of Power that could result from recalling at least 2 Senators for replacement with strongly "Conservative" individuals as soon as possible, leading perhaps to the above potential history coming near the mark.

But such a thing cannot come to pass unless individuals in each state insist on viable recall provisions, the existence of which alone may improve Congressional behavior...particularly if such provisions are used, successfully, to remove at least two sitting members [a single removal would be seen as an anomaly, and of relatively little political consequence; a second instance would change that, making recall a viable end to a sitting member of Congress (particularly with recalls of Senators, due to the length of terms)].

So it falls to each individual reading this material to try to ensure viable recall provisions apply in their location, and then that those recall provisions are exercised...at least once.


May 21, 2011 ADDENDUM

The following is an alphabetical list of Democrats in The Senate that are in Class II, next scheduled to face the electorate in 2014 and thus potential “targets” for an effort to bring about a “25th Amendment Revolution”:

Approx. pop. (x1M) recall

Baucus, Max (WY) 0.564

Begich, Mark (AK) 0.710 x

Coons, Christopher (DE) 0.901

Durbin, Richard J. (IL) 12.831

Franken, Al (MN) 5.304 x

Hagen, Kay R. (NC) 9.535

Harkin, Tom (IA) 3.046

Johnson, Tim (SD) 0.814

Kerry, John (MA) 6.548

Landrieu, Mary L. (LA) 4.533 x

Lautenberg, Frank R. (NJ) 8.792 x

Levin, Carl (MI) 9.884 x

Merkley, Jeff (OR) 3.831 x

Pryor, Mark L. (AR) 2.916

Reed, Jack (RI) 1.052 x

Rockefeller, John D. IV (WV) 1.853

Shaheen, Jeanne (NH) 1.316

Udall, Mark (CO) 5.029 x

Warner, Mark R. (VA) 8.001 x

Of these, four have fewer than 1 million residents, three others have fewer than 2 million residents, and four others still under 5 million. Of these 12 Senators, several may be seen as potential “targets” for a number of reasons, including deals on the healthcare bill and/or “general reputation”; positions on raising the debt ceiling and how much cost-cutting (and of what kind) in government might also serve as fodder. Of the 20, at least 9 have at least some degree of recall provision already on the books [which, unless specifically denying it, should apply to U.S. Senators].

The key here is at least two, preferably four or even five, and seven or more for a thorough “lock”.

Shifting relative “control” of The Senate from Democrats to Republicans could thus be accomplished in perhaps as little as 120 to 180 days, setting the stage for removal of Obama from office without need of impeachment.

There is a potential problem in getting the Vice President to take part in accord with the requirements of the 25th Amendment, but a Court challenge might well remove the requirement on the grounds that there is an inherent conflict of interest in having the Vice President having a key role in removing the President [which would result in the VP then immediately assuming the duties of President, if only temporarily]. Such a Court challenge could be included as part of the expected challenge necessary to get the President to sign into law legislation creating a panel that could then remove that President from office, which, as noted above, any President would likely decline to sign [if Obama did sign, a separate challenge would have to be mounted unless the creating legislation included a provision that would cause the Court challenge on Constitutionality of the VP's role].



The economic malaise that has battered TUSA and the rest of the world for a number of years in what has often been called "The Great Recession" has continued and become arguably even worse since "25th Amendment Revolution" was written [there was more material available on the subject in an ebook at the time, offering fairly detailed information/planning on how to go about such a revolution].

Now, in the throes of what some might see as the financial meltdown going into something akin to a death-spiral as the U.S.A. heads to what has been touted as a debt default, more and more people are sometimes suggesting the President, through his (mis?)behaviors, has perhaps lost touch with reality.

In a note dated 072311 at the bottom of the "Debt Ceiling" page here, we stated we think The President suffers lunacy and there is clear need for exercise of the 25th Amendment.

A number of people in the media are using terms along the lines of "lunacy" to describe the actions of the President, almost always accompanied with laughter as if to defuse the suggestion. The only thing we find humorous about this is that the people "in the know" have to couch such an assessment with (pretended?) humor. Are they afraid of what might happen to them if they said it in all seriousness?

If that is the case, then the madness goes beyond Gang 537, and even a 25th Amendment Revolution may not save the Republic.


September 22, 2011

More and more pundits and others are making rumblings along the lines that perhaps President Obama should not run for reelection in 2012.

We suggest that the powers that be within the democratic party would be well-advised to encourage Obama to resign, and/or to encourage vice President Biden to relieve Obama of command, in accord with the 25th amendment.

Obama has become damaged goods, and becomes more damaged almost daily (and sometimes more often than that). Some will try to defend Obamas' performance on the basis of the situation that he "inherited": rather than argue the point, we suggest that by this time in his term that is of little consequence, that what counts is that he has not remedied the problems. Some will suggest that perhaps nobody could remedy the problems: tempted as we are to argue that point immediately, we will pass (for the moment, anyway), again pointing out that at this point in his term it is of little consequence, that what counts is that he has not remedied the problems.

Consequences to the Democratic Party in the next election are simply that Obama, in not having remedied the problems -- for whatever reason -- is damaged goods: if the Democratic Party is to be able to have its best chance in the 2012 election, then the Democrats must field somebody else for the presidency.

While Hillary Clinton has been suggested as a possibility, and in some quarters it is questioned whether she may give a challenge to Obama in the primaries anyway, we suggest that the stronger candidacy might well be Biden and whoever he would have nominated to the VP slot should he have assumed the mantle...provided that becomes the incumbent team early enough.

The best hope for Democrats may be change at the top: a 25th Amendment Revolution.


Taking no ads, the only revenue to keep this site going is from the few items
sometimes in our store and the generous donations left in the tip jar.

To the extent that you think reasonable

-- and please think for a moment about how long it would take you to put something like this together,
and what it would cost you, in energy and money, to then make it and keep it available on the web --

we ask you consider making a donation



(general) PLAN                                            

                Exercise integrity, and encourage others to do so: Support each other, and encourage others to do so;
               Educate ourselves, and encourage others to do so; Use the term Usann, and encourage others to do so;
               Resist tyranny, and encourage others to do so; Exercise authority over officials, and encourage others to do so;

       And take the country back, one day, one moment, at a time.

                 Our goal is to follow the above plan in our lives and our business, thus being a part of returning our country,
                The United States of America, to the Republic it was envisioned and designed to be and The Great Experiment 
                    -- the Rule of Law  --  brought to the world by the Founding Fathers.

We ask readers  -- and others --  consider doing likewise.