A Moral Imperative
  For Presidential Removal

    By  The Pamphleteer

Does a Moral Imperative for Presidential Removal by Citizens exist?
Will We The People act to carry out such an imperative?

A Moral Imperative originates in the minds of We The People.The Moral Imperative is a belief in what is right and in
the absolute necessity of upholding the right. The knowledge of right comes from the lighthouses of conscience and
logic.  A Moral Imperative is of such import and force that it compels people to act.

The Legal Imperative of written law contains within itself under the name “jury nolle” the knowledge that a devotion to
the moral can transcend the legal. Indeed, there can be a time when abiding by the moral over the legal is the only
path to justice.

A Moral Imperative is “Citizen Nolle” of the Legal Imperative.

A Moral Imperative held by We The People transcends the authority of Congress, the President, and the Courts.

          A Large Number Of We The People Required
A large number of people in the country must hold the Moral Imperative by conscience and logic for the imperative to
be justified.

The large number need not be a majority. Majorities consistently fail to see evil and harm arising in their own nation.
In the days leading to World War ll, a majority of German citizens failed to carry out, or even have, a Moral Imperative
to remove Hitler. And so, millions died. Here we see the danger to a nation when the people fail to carry out a Moral
Imperative for Removal when such Imperative is justified.

It is logically and morally acceptable that the large number of citizens holding a Moral Imperative can be a minority of
the whole population. In our time of 1776, only some 20% favored our American Revolution to separate from Britain.
Some 30% were loyal to Britain and wanted to remain under the economic protection and daily domination of King
George. The other 50% just wanted to be left alone. And, of the 20% who favored independence, only a fraction of
those were moved to action enough to do the fighting and take part in the revolution. That small fraction acting on
their Moral Imperative for separation from an oppressive King brought the United States of America into being. The
land of the free.

A majority is not required for a Moral Imperative for presidential removal to exist and be carried out. A “20 percent”
who with conscience and logic feel a Moral Imperative and act on this imperative take their action for the benefit of
all, including the uninvolved “80 percent” majority.

    A President Causes Imperative
The President can cause a Moral Imperative for Presidential Removal by Citizens to arise when:

1.        The President is a deceiver and uses deception as his way of governing. He willingly destroys
the trust We The People place in him.

2.        The President reveals through his actions that he is against his own country. This alone can establish a
Moral Imperative for Presidential Removal by Citizens.

3.        The President is bringing harm to the country as seen by a large number of We The People.

4.        The president is intent on continuing his harmful actions.

5.        The President knowingly refuses to take action necessary to protect and defend the country.

6.        The President declares laws himself. This is the action of a tyrant taking away the power of Congress
to make laws.

7.        The President willfully and repeatedly violates the constitution and violates his constitutional oath
to “protect and defend the constitution.”

Any one of these, and more, can justifiably give rise to a Moral Imperative for Presidential Removal by Citizens.

              Presidential Removal by Assassination
There have been four Presidential Assassinations in America. Did any come from a Moral Imperative?

      President John F. Kennedy Assassination, 1963
Whether President Kennedy was assassinated by the alleged "lone gunman" and disaffected communist sympathizer
Lee Harvey Oswald, or by Cuban Castro supporters, by double-crossed Mafia, by angered Mob bosses, by a cabal
of CIA operatives, by military-industrial complex leaders wanting to rev up the Vietnam war for profiteering, or as part
of Vice President Lyndon Johnson’s desire to take the presidential throne, whether by any of these, or by something
else entirely, the Kennedy assassination decades later remains as unsettled now as it was shocking and
incomprehensible then.

There were many in 1963 who believed Kennedy was “soft on communism” in the Cold War and did not like some of
his presidential actions, especially the botched and disastrous Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion that was intended to free
Cuba from communist dictator Fidel Castro. But, mere political disagreement with a president is not a Moral
Imperative. It’s a political imperative for political action.

President Kennedy was prodigiously immoral in his personal behavior. His rampant sexual prowling, infidelity and
adultery were kept undercover by a protective news media and were not known outside Washington DC. A large
number of We The People would have disapproved of his immorality but were not aware of it at the time. Even if a
large number had been aware, personal immorality alone does not create a Moral Imperative for Presidential

Even though many felt Kennedy was politically and morally “wrong”, there was not a national sense that this
President intended to damage America. There was no widely held sense that President Kennedy was against
America. There was strong sentiment against Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, where he was shot but on balance
nationwide he was held in high regard.

The great national outpouring of grief over Kennedy’s assassination is testament that a widely held Moral Imperative
for Presidential Assassination did not exist and could not have been the cause of his assassination.

      President William McKinley Assassination, 1901.
The popular and well regarded President McKinley was shaking hands in a large fairgrounds crowd at Niagara Falls
when he was shot point blank in the stomach by avowed anarchist Leon Czolgosz. McKinley was treated and,
although the bullet could not be removed immediately from his stomach, doctors believed the President was headed
for a complete recovery. McKinley died about a week later of gangrene.

Anarchist Czolgosz declared he alone planned and carried out the shooting. He wanted to advance the international
anarchist cause by following up on the anarchist shooting a year earlier of the President of Italy. Assassination in
hopes of advancing one’s own political cause is not a Moral Imperative for Presidential Assassination. It’s a crime.
There was no widely held Moral Imperative in the death of McKinley.

     President James A. Garfield Assassination, 1881
President James A. Garfield had been in office barely four months and was about to board a train at the Washington
D.C. station in July 1881 when he was shot. He died of the wound some two months later. The nation was enraged at
the shooting. The accepted history is that the shooter Charles Guiteau was angry that he had not been appointed to
a diplomatic post. He was tried and convicted of murdering President Garfield and was hanged. Anger and political
disappointment of one individual do not create a Moral Imperative. Clearly, there was no widely held Moral Imperative
here for Presidential Assassination.

      President Abraham Lincoln Assassination, 1865
When President Lincoln was assassinated there were two American nations: The North, or Union, and the Southern
Nation, the Confederate States of America, or Confederacy. Lincoln was the President of the Northern Nation.
Jefferson Davis was the President of the Southern Nation. Lincoln and the Northern Congress refused to legally
recognize the Southern Nation but it most certainly did exist. The Southern Nation was complete with its own name,
capital, constitution, president, legislature, laws, military, currency, commerce, symbols, boundaries, culture and loyal

In the North, many strongly opposed Lincoln’s “civil war” to force the breakaway Southern Nation back into the
Northern Nation and to curtail slavery. One such opposition group was the Copperheads. They were mostly
Democrats who, after losing the election to Republican Lincoln, bitterly opposed his war from the start. However,
throughout the North there is no historical documentation that a large number, or even any, of the anti-war
Northerners harbored a desire for assassination of their president.

Indeed, the North re-elected Lincoln to a second term some four years into his tragic and painful war and only
months before he was killed.

The Lincoln assassination did not come from a Moral Imperative widely held among the people in the North. That
such an imperative did not exist there is clearly seen by the great outpouring of Northern Nation grief when Lincoln
was murdered.

It was a devotee of the Southern Nation John Wilkes Booth, a renowned actor of the day, who assassinated the
President of the Northern Nation. Booth was killing the leader of a nation that was invading and destroying the
Southern Nation to which Booth felt allegiance.

Booth’s act was an act of war during a war not a Moral Imperative for Assassination arising from the people
in Lincoln’s own nation.

A Moral Imperative For Presidential Assassination can only come from within the President’s own nation. Any outside
source of an assassination is an act of war against the nation.

The assassination did not come from a Moral Imperative held in Lincoln’s Northern Nation. And, there could not be a
Moral Imperative in the South for his assassination. Lincoln was not the President of the South.

Lincoln was not killed based on a Moral Imperative existing in either nation, the North or the South.

           Assassination by an Individual
Oswald killing President Kennedy, Czolgosz killing McKinley, Guiteau killing Garfield, and Booth killing Lincoln were
acts by an individual, or at most, by a small number of persons.

A Presidential Assassination by an individual motivated by his personal grievances cannot be a Presidential Removal
resulting from a Moral Imperative. Any Moral Imperative for Removal must come from circumstances caused by the
president that affect a large number of We The People of the nation. These circumstances must be seen and
understood and felt by the large number. These circumstances must be of such import to compel a large number of
people to act.

None of the Presidential assassinations has come from a Moral Imperative.