0

Say a very corrupt president were able to use threats to make Congress do as they said and committed many impeachable offenses, but Congress wouldn’t get rid of them, could 3/4ths of the state legislatures remove him from office using an amendment?

12

Yes.

There is perhaps no limit on the power of the states to amend the constitution. The process is this:

  1. 2/3 of the legistures of the states apply to Congress calling for an amendatory convention.

  2. Congress shall call a convention (there is no time scale specified in the constitution, common law suggests that there should not be undue delay)

  3. The convention meets, with delgates from each state, amendments can be proposed in advance, or (probably) raised at the the convention. An amendment "President <insert name here> shall be removed from office...." would suffice.

  4. The proposed amendment is considered in each state legislature. when 3/4 of the states have approved it (either in their legislatures or in state conventions), it becomes part of the constitution.

This process has never been used. It would be a slow process. It is extremely unlikely that the 3/4 rate of approval could be achieved in a situation in which 2/3 of the Senate were unwilling to convict on an impeachment charge. So in practice this method of removing a President will never happen: It is too slow and too difficult.

The only part of the constitution that can't be amended is the "equal representation in the Senate" (although even that restriction is questionable.) Beyond that, the constitution is completely determined by the states. There is no check on this power.

3
  • 1
    This strikes me as being an excellent question. I'm new to this board though, so could someone please explain why it's been closed?
    – Hank Igoe
    Jan 10 at 17:00
  • @HankIgoe Our site’s focus is on political processes, policies and governments - all of this discussion needs to be had in a relatively civil manner. The specific close reason (which is only visible to the author and users with a certain site privilege) states that the question was closed because it’s aim was to “promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician” - I believe that this is evident due to the language used in the question at the time of this comment.
    – sau226
    Jan 10 at 17:16
  • 5
    The OP has recently joined and posted a large number of fairly short questions, mostly about "how to remove Trump", some better than others. This kind of behaviour can be problematic. Ideally each question should be considered on its own merits, but the people who can vtc are people. This one is, I think, one of the more interesting ones, and doesn't focus too much on promoting the OP's opinion. I've voted to reopen.
    – James K
    Jan 10 at 17:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .