Wanted: A speaker for liberty, not its elitist enemies

Let's say that when the smoke clears after the 2014 election, people pledged to vote for impeachment and removal of the offenders have been elected, in sufficient numbers, in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. Let's call them "the bucket brigade" for short. As the Congress organizes itself for action, the first step of "the bucket brigade" would be to elect, as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the person they believe best suited to take over the Office of President of the United States. This could be any qualified person in the U.S., since the speaker does not have to be a member of the House. ("Could 2013 be a returning point for America' self-government?")

"For instance did you know House Republicans are not constrained in their choice of speaker to those in the House of Representatives?" (Joseph Farah, "Is there life after Boehner?")

In response to Mr. Farah's question, I said to myself, "Why yes, I did know" – in witness whereof I offer the blog post quoted above. In presenting the "pledge to impeach" strategy for the 2014 election, I made the point that impeachment could and should extend to all the civil officers who are collaborating in Obama's assault on the Constitution including, of course, the vice president. In that event the line of succession to the presidency passes through the speaker of the House. So in electing the speaker, an impeachment majority in the U.S. House could assure that no one implicated in the attack on the Constitution would assume the presidency.

On account of this fact I suggested that electing an impeachment majority would result in "a vote of no confidence" in the administration of the U.S. government that would "translate into a complete change in the national administration, including recalcitrant members of the judiciary, if need be." I used that term in order to encourage thoughtful readers to compare the result with the vote of no confidence that can bring down a questionable government under the British Parliamentary system.

Since they made the vice president of the United States the president of the U.S. Senate, the framers of the U.S. Constitution were obviously open to the possibility that the choice of officers to preside over the House of Representatives would not be limited to members of Congress. I'm glad to see that people may finally be starting to think this through. But as they do so, I hope they will ponder its full implications.

TRENDING: 'Impeach Barack Obama': Lindsey Graham suggests liberals' worst nightmare

The framers of the Constitution assumed that a contest could develop between the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, a contest in which the U.S. Senate would represent a clique of powerful interests seeking to subvert the government of, by and for the people established by the U.S. Constitution. In Federalist No. 63, James Madison assumed that, in any such contest, the U.S. House would ultimately prevail. On a number of issues affecting the sovereignty of the people of the United States (including especially the issues that affect the individual rights and economic independence of the general electorate, the security of U.S. borders and the status of illegal immigrants), we are witness to just such a contest.

John Boehner and his colleagues in the present leadership of the GOP majority U.S. House of Representatives are obviously acting as agents of the anti-constitutional elitist faction forces that fraudulently place Obama in the White House. By actions culminating in recent votes that funded, aided and abetted Obama's constitutionally subversive policies, they showed their contempt for the electorate's repudiation of those policies in the recent congressional elections. They have made it clear that, when it comes to dealing with these and other such issues, they have no intention of representing the voters who elected the GOP majority.

Here it is! The most effective way to see John Boehner ousted as speaker. Participate in WND's "Dump Boehner" campaign now!

If John Boehner is dismissed as speaker of the House, the vote for his replacement must be seen in the context of the elitist faction's assault on the sovereignty of the people of the United States embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Farah suggests that GOP members of the House think outside the box, but such thinking will be ineffective and inchoate unless it takes true account of the strategic situation in which the people of the United States now finds itself.

Properly understood, the choice of the next speaker of the House is an opportunity to lift to prominence a voice that will speak powerfully and effectively on behalf of the beleaguered self-government (of, by and for the people) the U.S. Constitution is intended to establish and perpetuate. Along with the president of the United States, and the president of the U.S. Senate, the speaker of the House is positioned to be a focal point for national understanding and choice. In our present circumstances, the choice of speaker is an opportunity to lift up an effective focal point for the people who just voted to reject the march toward elitist faction dictatorship Obama represents.

This dictatorship is the box into which the elitists are maneuvering the people of the United States, by force if necessary. They mean to bring our existence as a free (i.e., self-governing) people to an end. It makes no sense to suggest that people who have already proven their allegiance to the elitist faction's corrupt, compromised and speciously "pragmatic" understanding of politics (like Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Carson) can be trusted to assume this vital position in the months ahead. The choice of speaker of the House must be considered in the context of determining who will be speaking for America's future after the votes are cast in 2016.

Few have thought it through, but the impeachment/removal of Barack Obama is not the only way the choice for speaker of the House can help assure that the next president of the United States will be a servant of the American people, not a proven tool of the elitist faction bent on ending America's constitutional liberty. I will discuss this in an upcoming post on my Loyal to Liberty blog.

Media wishing to interview Alan Keyes, please contact [email protected].