Prominent impeachment activists argue that impeachment, rather than violent revolution, is the appropriate mechanism built into the Constitution to fight tyranny.
But some people respond that Congress won't impeach, and so that mechanism is not available. Specifically, House leader Pelosi has said "impeachment is off the table", Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers won't take action, and the Congress as a whole simply won't start impeachment proceedings. So they argue that with impeachment unavailable, the only option left is violence.
But I think that argument is missing a very important point.
This could work today. If a million Americans peacefully surround Capitol Hill and hold signs saying "we're not leaving until the Constitution and the rule of law are restored: IMPEACH", Congress would be forced to start impeachment proceedings -- no matter what they've been saying or doing.
No matter how subservient Congress and the corporate media are, they could not ignore a peaceful sit-in surrounding Capitol Hill. A non-violent action of that size simply could not be ignored.
Therefore, why is anyone talking about violent revolution when we haven't tried mass peaceful actions demanding impeachment?
I am not naive: I understand that there are arguments against non-violence. However, I believe so strongly in non-violence that I am strongly committed to giving it every possible chance to succeed.