Replies

The only way those "final options" will have any moral authority is if we can argue, as did the Founders, that we have exhausted all legitimate means at our disposal to secure a hearing for our grievances:

Then we get back to the argument about 'standing'. Who has standing? How to we petition the Executive branch for a redress of grievances?

We The People have no standing as has been decided in courts during the birth certificate fiascoes.

Will the Tea Party align with a contingent of lawyers and go at it that way?
I more agree with your closing statement.

How to we petition the Executive branch for a redress of grievances?

We don't petition the Executive. We petition the Judiciary. But a Writ of Mandamus only affects a LOWER body, and since this is the chief executive we're talking about, the only court of superior jurisdiction is the Supreme Court. We petition them; we don't have to prove "standing." We are the public affected by the executive's failure to act as he's sworn to do. We are, in effect, his bosses.

The damage done to our society by a rogue president isn't confined to actual impacts, although there are many of those and they are egregious. If such a man can't be constrained by the rule of law and by the limits imposed on him by the documents that define his position, then he must be deposed by other means.

I don't think even odumbo wants THAT.

We're not out of options ... yet.