If you Google “Impeach Nancy Pelosi” you’ll come up with page after page of articles talking about Nancy Pelosi wanting to impeach Donald Trump.
But almost nothing for the reverse, despite a new White House Petition crossing 150,000 people in support of removing Nancy Pelosi from office.
Those details right here:
The petition reads as follows:
Nancy Pelosi is a TRAITOR to the American People!
The Constitution defines, "Treason against the US.. ..adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Illegal aliens are enemies that invade our country with drugs, human trafficking, and terrorist causing death and crime to American citizens. Nancy Pelosi adheres to these enemies by voting for and providing them aid and comfort through Sanctuary policies funded by US citizen tax dollars, and refuses to protect American people by refusing to fund our border wall, leaving our borders open and unsafe. Pelosi refused to meet with Angel families, caused the government shut down then traveled on US dollars to Hawaii and Puerto Rico while 800,000 Fed workers don't get paid, and uninvited Trump for SOTU. IMPEACH Pelosi for treason!
And the petition has already exceeded it's goal of 100,000 and just crossed 150,000:
We've recently covered this story and even sent an email update to our special mailing list to let them know about it.
Of course the support for removing Nancy Pelosi from office was very strong, but one reader (who I will just call Peter G.) wrote us back and asked a very good question.
Basically, he wanted to know what the Constitutional basis was to actually remove Pelosi from office....or is the Petition just blowing hot air?
Here's what he wrote:
On what grounds could she possibly be impeached? I don’t want to mimic what the Dems are doing regarding impeaching Trump. He has not committed an impeachable offense, but neither has she, to my knowledge. As much as I would absolutely like her out of office, I don’t think Republicans should be doing this.
It was a GREAT question from Peter and an even better point he was raising -- so we wanted to take the time to answer it.
So, is there a basis to remove Pelosi and any other "open borders politician"?
I believe there is, and it's actually quite sound. And simple!
According to House.gov, every Member of the Senate and House of Representatives must take the following Oath of Office:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
—U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3
That's the U.S. Constitution folks.
The key part is underlined for you.
It's actually a very basic and simple oath, but it demonstrates the genius of our Founding Fathers.
All Senators and Representatives must support the Constitution. Simple!
So then we look at the Constitution and see what it requires.
From Law.Cornell.edu, here is Article 4, Section 4 of the Constution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
Also very simple!
The Federal Government's role is to protect the States against invasion.
In other words, "open borders" is at odds with our Constitution itself!
And any politician that supports open borders has failed their oath of office. Period folks, that's it.
Newsmax put forth a great summary of this issue:
For decades our immigration system worked just fine. In fact America brings in more than one million people into the country, legally. We are more generous with immigration opportunities than any other country in the world.
Now we are facing a ‘crisis at the border’ we are told by the 24-hour news media that is giving it wall-to-wall coverage. Those in the drive-thru junk-food media are feeding its viewers a steady diet of “America is bad and racist” to its viewers.
What they fail to tell anyone is that The President and Congress are required to control the border and turn away the waves of would-be illegal aliens storming the gates. They are required to protect the nation and our republic form of government.
How can I say that? Well it's written quite clearly in the Constitution.
Article 4, Sec. 4 of The United States Constitution makes it clear the Federal government must stop such an incursion of foreigners into the country exactly like the one we are seeing. Here is what was written by our Founding Fathers concerning our republican form of government.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
From where I stand in the nation's heartland, what we are seeing at the southern border is by definition an invasion. When thousands of people are marching on the border waving flags of other countries and attacking those protecting our border — what else would you call it? When they are demanding entry and show a complete lack of respect for our laws and those enforcing them, what would you call it?
The Heritage Foundation also put forth a great analysis:
Providing for the Common Defense
In brief, the Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.
Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week.
National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.
Article Two establishes the President as the government’s chief executive officer. Much of that Article relates to the method for choosing the President and sets forth the general executive powers of his office, such as the appointment and veto powers. The only substantive function of government specifically assigned to the President relates to national security and foreign policy, and the first such responsibility granted him is authority to command the military; he is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century.
But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.
National defense is exclusively the function of the national government. Under our Constitution, the states are generally sovereign, which means that the legitimate functions of government not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article One, Section 10 does specifically prohibit the states, except with the consent of Congress, from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or engaging in war, the only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded. (This was necessary because, when the Constitution was written, primitive forms of communication and transportation meant that it could take weeks before Washington was even notified of an invasion.)
In the end, when you read the Oath of Office together with the Constitution, it's very clear on its face that any failure to protect the States from invasion is a failure of the Oath of Office and of the duties prescribed to Congress by the Constitution.
The only question left for interpretation is "what constitutes an invasion"?
Which is why you've seen the massive push by the media to paint the Migrant Caravans as just women and children escaping bad situations.
So it comes down to questions like:
Are the Migrant Caravans just poor women and children or are the an invasion force?
Does an "open borders" policy leave us wide open to an invasion?
Because keep in mind, once we've truly been invaded, there won't be any more debate. There won't be any Supreme Court cases to see if these Democrats violated their Oaths of Office. Because we'll all be busy speaking Chinese, or Spanish, or Russian, or Arabic. Take your pick. The time for the critical analysis is now.
Does a Border without a wall (when we have the resources to build one and public will to build one) fail the test of protecting against an invasion?
How else do you protect against an invasion?
Seems to me like building a phsyical barrier is a wonderful first start!
Sure, you want to add some high-tech options to it? Go ahead, be my guest! But why in the world can't we do both? That's a false choice designed to confuse the public. There's no reason you can't (and shouldn't) do both.
In conclusion, everyone has to make up their own mind to the questions above, but what's not up for debate is that the Oath of Office says Pelosi and Schumer and Watters and all the other Democrats are sworn to uphold the Constitution, which means protecting the States against invasion! That is not up for debate.
And I'll tell you this, if that's the standard, I'd damn sure want to be one of the politicians building a wall than one pushing for open borders.
So...what do YOU think?
Should Nancy be removed from office?
Tell Nancy To BUILD THE WALL NOW! 💥
You can help!
[sc name=”Convertkit Form”]