#eligibility: Keyes v. Bowen Appealed: Precedent Exists for Courts to Qualify Public Executives
In a posting regarding attorney Gary Kreep’s appeal of Keyes v. Bowen to the 3rd Appellate District Court in California (a case different from attorney Dr. Orly Tait’s case, also on appeal), WorldNetDaily reports that there is precedent for Court removal of a governmental chief executive.
Longtime readers will recall when I last reported on this case that the Plaintiffs did not have all of their research in order to prove to the Court that such eligibility petitions were not unprecedented. In fact, at the time, Ballot-Access.org reported the following:
On March 13, California Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney tentatively ruled against Alan Keyes, in the lawsuit concerning whether President Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, and whether the California Secretary of State should have put him on the ballot. The case is Keyes v Bowen, 34-2008-8000096-CU-WM-GDS. The 6-page opinion seems to strengthen the rights of political parties to place anyone they wish on the November ballot, regardless of that candidate’s qualifications.
The decision says, “Defendants contend that Election Code sec. 6901 requires the Secretary of State to place on the ballot the names of the candidates submitted to her by a recognized political party and that she has no discretion to override the party’s selection. The Court finds that the First Amended Petition fails to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State…Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”
In 1968, the California Secretary of State refused to list Eldridge Cleaver on the November ballot as the presidential nominee of the Peace & Freedom Party. Cleaver and PFP sued the Secretary of State, but the State Supreme Court refused to hear the case, by a 6-1 vote. Cleaver and the party then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, but that Court refused, 393 U.S. 810 (October 7, 1968). In this current Keyes lawsuit, attorneys for the Defendants claimed there was no such lawsuit. The attorney for Keyes did not have the California Supreme Court citation (58 Minutes 411), nor the U.S. Supreme Court cite, so he wasn’t able to establish the existence of this 40-year old precedent that does seem to give the Secretary of State the authority to refuse a party’s choice for president, if the Secretary of State thinks the party chose someone who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications. Keyes will appeal and his appeal will include the Cleaver precedent citation.
Eldridge Cleaver had been removed from the California ballot because the Secretary of State had learned that he was only 33 years old. [emphasis mine]
Advertise on this site
As WND states (and somewhat reiterating what I’ve quoted from Ballot-Access):
“In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president,” the brief, being filed this week, argues.
“Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver, unsuccessfully, challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States, which affirmed the actions.”
The other is a court precedent in which the governor of North Dakota was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution’s eligibility requirements. …
Kreep alleges the dismissal of the state case by Judge Michael Kenny was in error because the defendants “failed to establish that there was no triable cause of action on the critical constitutional issues of whether Obama has met the eligibility requirements to serve as president of the United States and whether Bowen has the duty, as chief elections officer of the state of California, to verify the eligibility of candidates for federal office running in the state of California.”
The president’s lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don’t have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution’s provision that president’s must be removed by impeachment, which rests with Congress.
In one case, the president’s lawyers prominently argued, “The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.
“The examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress,” the president’s lawyers argued.
But the issue, however, already has been adjudicated by courts, and the resolution is that courts do have the authority to review eligibility and even remove an ineligible chief executive, the appeal brief cites.
“Even though Obama was elected to this office, this ineligibility constitutes a legal disability for the office of president of the United States,” the brief states. “In ‘State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie,’ after Thomas H. Moodie was duly elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor,” the brief explains. …
The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.
“As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed,” the state’s archives report. “After Moodie’s inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935,” the state reports.
“We’re seeking to bar anyone from going on the presidential ballot in 2012 unless they can prove that they’re eligible,” Kreep told WND.
“Appellants contend that Bowen has a duty to ensure that all candidates in the state of California, for both federal and state offices, meet the eligibility requirements for the offices sought, that Bowen did not fulfill said duty, and that a court determination is needed to ensure that the California secretary of state comply with this duty in the future,” the brief said. …
Further, courts can address the problem.
While the dispute has “significant political overtones,” it is, nonetheless, “an issue which the court can make a determination on, because the requirements are clearly stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, of the U.S. Constitution and courts routinely decide questions of law and of fact such as the issue in this case.”
“A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people, as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States,” it continues.
“Respondents denied that this Cleaver case had any relevance to the underlying issue … Similarly, in 1984, the Peace and Freedom Party listed Mr. Larry Holmes as an eligible candidate in the presidential primary. When the then SOS checked his eligibility, it was found that Mr. Holmes was, similarly, not eligible, and Mr. Holmes was removed from the ballot… It this case, we have a similar situation in that the Democratic Party submitted the name of Obama as a candidate for president,” the brief argues.
First, “significant political overtunes” must be irrelevant for the Judiciary, else no decision could ever be made on any constitutional question. Therefore, to me, this is a moot point.
Yet, let’s get back to the bigger issue of eligibility and the Courts.
This political question with respect to the Judiciary can be broken down into a number of legitimate points:
- Can the Judiciary determine whether or not a candidate is eligible for a sought-after office?
- Can the Judiciary issue an opinion that would subsequently cause a candidate to be ineligible for such office?
- To what extent is the Judiciary tasked with enforcing the constitutional question of eligibility?
In this citizen reporter’s non-attorney opinion, the answer is that the Judiciary does have a role in making sure that the law is enforced, particularly by those other branches that are tasked with such a duty.
Remember, I have repeatedly stated that since there currently exists no law that enforces presidential or vice presidential constitutional eligibility nor to what degree it ought to be enforced, it would be practically impossible for the Court to issue an order against a non-existent law. Therefore, if the Judiciary is to be petitioned regarding eligibility, another route must be used instead; this posting could be such an opening.
On the one hand, we are told by many a Defendant in various eligibility cases that the Secretary of State has, effectively, no discretion in determining whether or not a candidate could be placed on the ballot. As this posting shows, the Defendants have either been lying or ignorant (then the question becomes whether such ignorance is willful or not) when there is already such existing precedent.
Further, it is also a contention that “only” (“the exclusive means”) the Congress and/or the Electoral College is tasked by the Constitution and/or federal law for vetting a candidate. Again, precedent clearly shows that this is not the case. Furthermore, any Defendant would be hard-pressed to find any verbiage (outside of their albeit learned opinions) that specifically states that the Joint Session of Congress and/or the Electoral College are “only,” “solely,” or “exclusively” the routes for answering eligibility questions. Incidentally, no opposition commenter on this site can find such exclusive verbiage either, outside of their own worthy opinions.
Lastly, there is the issue of removal. As I’ve stated numerous times on my site — and as the singular point upon which the opposition and I agree — the Judiciary cannot lawfully remove a sitting President, and it’s just as unlikely that the branch could remove a lower chief executive. Nevertheless, making a determination as to the eligibility of a President is something that can be quintessentially within its jurisdiction, where the Legislative branch would subsequently be tasked with such official removal.
In my view, what Mr. Kreep must show the Court is how deficient the Secretary of State for California was in making a determination for whether or not Mr. Obama should have been placed on the ballot; he might even ask her upon what basis did she make her determination. Did she use the Internet to vet Mr. Obama? Did she even vet Obama at all?
Either way, clear precedent exists that her very office had previously vetted candidates. Based on what we know today, it’s a shame that such vetting — whether it resulted positively or negatively — did not occur.
It’s also exceedingly obvious that her office’s finger-pointing back to the Democrat party is a complete ruse.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com
Photo courtesy OrlyTaitzSite.com
169 responses to #eligibility: Keyes v. Bowen Appealed: Precedent Exists for Courts to Qualify Public Executives
“…the Democrat party [Barack Hussein Obama] is a complete ruse.”
The North Dakota case is kind of interesting, but for the appeal Kreep needs to show error by the Superior Court of California, which wasn’t bound by a ND Court’s ruling based on ND law.
The Eldridge Cleaver case we’ve heard before. It doesn’t contradict the Superior Court’s opinion, and Kreep did not even raise it there, so I don’t see what use it is. As I explained to Leo Donofrio, “State officials can check biographical sources and exclude ineligible candidates, but they need not listen to conspiracy theories and legal sophistry.” [To be fair to Kreep and Keyes, last I heard they were not pushing the two-citizen-parents theory of Donofrio/Apuzzo/Taitz.]
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.
The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.
The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 [At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874]; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.
The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the dissenting opinion of Scott v. Sandford, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1814 relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues, and stated in The Venus, “The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘…The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”
Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives
…The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874)
“ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President’… The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Simply put, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”…
To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States.
Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.
Thus, Obama is not “eligible to the office of President”.
For: We the People
From: The Word of Truth
John 10:1-2, 10
I tell you the truth, the man [USURPER] who does not enter the sheep pen [OFFICE OF PRESIDENT] by the gate [ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION - BORN IN THE COUNTRY, OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS], but climbs in by some other way [FRAUD], is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate [ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION - BORN IN THE COUNTRY, OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS] is the shepherd of his sheep [WE THE PEOPLE]. The thief [USURPER] comes only to steal and kill and destroy [THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES]…
Matthew 7:15
Watch out for false prophets [USURPERS & THOSE WHO SUPPORT USURPERS]. They come to you [AS A GROUNDSWELL] in sheep’s clothing [ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA], but inwardly they are ferocious wolves [WHO COME ONLY TO STEAL AND KILL AND DESTROY].
GROUNDSWELL ORGANIZING FOR OBAMERIKA
http://groundswell.barackobama.com/
Welcome to Organizing for America’s Groundswell, a new tool to break down big projects into simple parts that volunteers across the country can quickly complete together.
The Eldridge Cleaver case we’ve heard before. It doesn’t contradict the Superior Court’s opinion, and Kreep did not even raise it there, so I don’t see what use it is.
Cleaver’s situation may have historical precedence, but it doesn’t have any legal precedence. Cleaver filed a petition with the California Supreme Court, which was denied without comment. Cleaver then sought cert. with SCOTUS, which again was denied without comment.
There was no reasoned decision explicitly affirming what the SoS’s office did, nor did the courts explain the authority under which the office acted.
Which is the argument the SoS made (and the superior court adopted in dismissing Keyes’ petition): there is no law mandating that the SoS’s office investigate eligibility.
Who needs Eldridge Cleaver when we have the wisdom of Ward Cleaver to rely upon?
Wally Cleaver: Gee Dad, how come you know so much about buying cars?
Ward Cleaver: Well, Wally, as unbelievable as it may seem they did have cars in my younger days.
As has already been noted, the rulings in the Cleaver case support the legal ability of the SOS to remove someone who is not eligible, NOT that they can be forced to remove someone who IS eligible because of someone who believes in some arcane and incorrect theory.
If anything, the fact that the SOS did not remove the President from the ballot despite having the clear ability to do so is another indication of his ELIGIBILITY.
Oh, and Steve? Still waiting for the evidence that the Founders intended to create two classes of native born citizens. Like I’ve said, there is extensive documentation about the new government type they were establishing and the debates they undertook. Surely if they were establishing a format for citizenship that had never before been seen in western history, a form that was significantly different both from their own English common law roots and the “wisdom” of de Vattel, they would have had discussion and debate about it and would have taken care to document how they arrived at this history making decision, no?
Show us…
slcraig,
Do you consider yourself a “sovereign citizen?”
One quick note -
The other difference between the Cleaver case and the President is the fact that the federal courts also kept Cleaver off the ballot, effectively saying that he was not eligible.
I believe that neither the states nor the federal courts have the right to make those kinds of decisions, that the requirements for the Presidency are decided by the EC and Congress, but I also think that it was the circumstances in 1968 and with the candidate (Cleaver) and the fact that he was not the candidate of a major party that led the federal courts to let the CA court decision stand.
see: Taitz v Obama (USDC-DC 10-151-cv) (quo warranto)
also see:
Strunk v USDOS / FOIA (USDC-DC 08-2234-cv) (quo warranto)
see also census related cases
ACORN v US (USDC-NYED 09-4888-cv)
Strunk v USDOC (census bureau) (USDC-DC 09-1295)
Re Phil;
[...] what Mr. Kreep must show the Court is how deficient the Secretary of State for California was in making a determination for whether or not Mr. Obama should have been placed on the ballot; he might even ask her upon what basis did she make her determination. Did she use the Internet to vet Mr. Obama? Did she even vet Obama at all? [...]
As we all know, unfortunately in California like elsewhere, the state leaves the political parties to vet the presidential candidate, and the state secretary relies on the parties’ efforts as to a solid, comprehensive background research – and so, leaving the state secretary in a kind of notarial position, where this office simply records what a party declared -
Other than that, California has some credentials guidelines which don’t really shine more light on a presidential candidate’s constitutional eligibility, like: his/her being mentioned in public-polls, then an active campaign in California, or having been declared qualified for federal matching funds –
So, again, if some rotten merchandise has (been skillfully) moved through a somnolous check point, after that it can be legitimately sold anywhere in the United States – any ulterior, possible complaint regarding this to a state secretary being duly re-directed to the political party in cause – from Alaska to Texas or Rhode Island to Arizona -
The asymmetry of this process is an absurdity – and the glaring loopholes in the system clearly allow for unqualified candidates to bypass without many risks background checks that not even bus drivers are allowed to skip -
“without many risks” – a clear attempt to hedge the risks of the possible (and hopefully severe) legal exposure caused by abusing the system’s weakness, was the DNC’s astute shipping the nomination package to all 57 states with cover letters which don’t have the “the candidate has fulfilled the constitutional requirements” wording in their text –
Nice – I’m impressed –
Poor Fukino, she has some company in DNC when it comes to preemptive disculpatory actions -
Regards -
Does anyone know if Bowen, the secretary of state of California, was elected as a result of George Soros’s “secretary of state project”? If Bowen was working for Soros it may explain her lack of action in vetting Obama.
another point, Cleaver supplied his birth certificate to the SOS and based on that he was removed from the ballot.
Phil -
Are you saying that because the Supreme Court of North Dakota once removed a Governor of North Dakota because he was ineligible that the federal courts MUST follow that precedent and take one of these cases?
The one thing we need to note is that the Cleaver situation was different because someone (probably not the secretary of state) filed a lawsuit before the election. So the issue was resolved before the voters actually had a choice to vote. They didn’t wait until the entire country had voted.
And the ND case was a state eleceted official. The job requirements of President is specifically laid out in the Constitution. The courts are usually hesitant in regards to getting involved in those sorts of issues.
What we have here is no one filing a suit until Obama was just about the Democratic nominee. There were no “natural born citizen” questions or any other issues until it looked like he had a chance to win.
The lawsuit is going to have to prove that somehow Sec. Bowen was remiss in her duty and somehow an ineligible individual was elected. Since there has been no admissible proof provided that the President is ineligible, Keyes will have a difficult time winning the case.
Black Lion: Where in the Constitution does it say that if somebody who’s ineligible manages to trick his or her way through an election and ends up in the Oval Office, then that person gets to “pass Go” and stay in place?
What difference does it make that he was elected? What matters is whether he ought to have been on the ballot in the first place and, if not, then it’s up to Congress to fix the error.
Impeachment or resignation, if it’s an “honest mistake” on his part. Otherwise, perhaps we are dealing with fraud (RICO?).
I really don’t get “it”. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/feb/02/tennessee-gops-ramsey-says-hes-unsure-obama-citize/?breakingnews
Full disclosure!
MGB, you are right on point! If a person is not eligible to be on the ballot, then his/her votes don’t count no matter how many votes are cast for such person in an election. This is what the action of quo warranto is designed to handle AFTER an election and usurpation has taken place. Every quo warranto case ever decided, that I am aware of, supports this logical outcome.
If it can be shown that a person did not possess or satisfy all the requirements necessary to be a valid candidate for office, then his/her name should never have been placed on the ballot ab initio. This is why the other candidates running for that same office have the standing necessary to challenge the alleged usurper in court. [Somehow, "by hook or crook," a faker, or should I say "fakir" in this instance, made it on the ballot.] The other candidates’ chances for success and outcome in an election, no matter how great or small, were affected by an imposter diluting and skewing the votes cast.
It seems pretty clear by statute that the D.C. District Court is the proper forum with jurisdiction to entertain a quo warranto petition by Alan Keyes, or any of the other candidates that ran in the same election for president. Congress cannot remove Obama by impeachment, if in fact he is illegally holding the position. Obama forfeited the seat upon assuming it – the seat is legally vacated. If such is the case, there is no “president” to “legally” impeach. Furthermore, Obama’s alleged disqualification is of the nature that he will never be able to remove it to become a valid candidate for the office of president.
Obama’s qualification “defect” is attached to him forever. A quo warranto can be brought as long as he remains in the office. Once his term is completed, it becomes moot.
MGB,
I agree that many seem to argue that once elected, regardless of the circumstances, it can not be undone. Which is a ridiculous premise as far as I am concerned. The same people who argue that the President is legitimate because “the people vetted him” with their vote are the same ones who are now crying foul that those same voters are unable to decipher those nasty corporate political ads.
So I’m not sure which it is: The voters are either smart enough to go out on their own and obtain, decipher, and uncover the true motives of political candidates, or they are so dumb as to not be able to determine the source and motives of whom is placing political advertising.
MGB says:
February 3, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Black Lion: Where in the Constitution does it say that if somebody who’s ineligible manages to trick his or her way through an election and ends up in the Oval Office, then that person gets to “pass Go” and stay in place?
What difference does it make that he was elected? What matters is whether he ought to have been on the ballot in the first place and, if not, then it’s up to Congress to fix the error.
Impeachment or resignation, if it’s an “honest mistake” on his part. Otherwise, perhaps we are dealing with fraud (RICO?).
____________________________________________________________________
But we have never had any instance of somebody that is ineligible “trick their way through an election and end up in the Oval Office”. So the requirements and checks and balances as set forth in the Constitution must be working. So again you are going by what ifs and maybes. You would need to provide concrete proof that someone was ineligible and was able to become President. Proof is not your guy or what you think. It was proven that Roger Calero was not born in the US. It was proven that Cleaver was not 35. All 44 Presidents in the history of the US have been eligible and have met the requirements of the Constitution. So there is no crisis of epic proportions. If there was an error then Congress would act by using the powers granted to them in the Constitution and impeach the President. We don’t have any error because President Obama was born in the state of HI. If even one member of Congress thought otherwise then they should follow the Constitution and begin articles of impeachment. That is their power as prescribed in the Constitution. Since not one of the curret 535 members of congress have done that, then they accept the evidence that President Obama was born in the US and is a natural born citizen. Period.
John says:
February 3, 2010 at 2:02 pm
MGB, you are right on point! If a person is not eligible to be on the ballot, then his/her votes don’t count no matter how many votes are cast for such person in an election. This is what the action of quo warranto is designed to handle AFTER an election and usurpation has taken place. Every quo warranto case ever decided, that I am aware of, supports this logical outcome.
If it can be shown that a person did not possess or satisfy all the requirements necessary to be a valid candidate for office, then his/her name should never have been placed on the ballot ab initio. This is why the other candidates running for that same office have the standing necessary to challenge the alleged usurper in court. [Somehow, "by hook or crook," a faker, or should I say "fakir" in this instance, made it on the ballot.] The other candidates’ chances for success and outcome in an election, no matter how great or small, were affected by an imposter diluting and skewing the votes cast.
It seems pretty clear by statute that the D.C. District Court is the proper forum with jurisdiction to entertain a quo warranto petition by Alan Keyes, or any of the other candidates that ran in the same election for president. Congress cannot remove Obama by impeachment, if in fact he is illegally holding the position. Obama forfeited the seat upon assuming it – the seat is legally vacated. If such is the case, there is no “president” to “legally” impeach. Furthermore, Obama’s alleged disqualification is of the nature that he will never be able to remove it to become a valid candidate for the office of president.
Obama’s qualification “defect” is attached to him forever. A quo warranto can be brought as long as he remains in the office. Once his term is completed, it becomes moot.
___________________________________________________________________
Unfortunately John what you may think and what is are 2 entirely different things. Obama has no alleged disqualification because he meets the requirements of the Constitution. So no court is going to rule otherwise. You guys really don’t get it. The reason that NO LEGAL EXPERT or CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR has agreed with you or doesn’t want to get involved is because there is no case. How many loses will it take before you realize that anyone that is familar with the law recognizes that the President is not a usurper, has proven that he was born in the US and in turn meets the Constitutional requirements.
Secondly a president cannot be removed by Quo Warranto filed in a state. At the Federal level QW is reserved to the District of Columbia and precedent suggests that such a QW is not applicable to the Office of the President. If by chance a QW was ever successfully brought (and 99% of legal scholars believe that to be doubtful) the case would eventually be appealed up to the SCOTUS. And they would just be hearing the merits of whether or not a QW could be brought against the President. No discovery and nothing else.
And you may want to read some more on the case cited above:
“State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie, 65 N.D. 340, 258 N.W. 558 (1935), was an original proceeding in quo warranto in this court, instituted by the attorney general and involving the title to the office of governor, in which proceeding the governor was removed. In that case this court stated that although Mr. Moodie was not entitled to hold the office, nevertheless, no question could be raised as to validity of the official acts performed by him because, under the wise provisions of the law, every act so done was valid and effective as he was clothed with prima facie title to the office and was a de facto officer and, as such, was clothed with all the rights and powers he would have enjoyed as a de jure officer possessed of every qualification. The court cited in support thereof State v. Ely, supra.”
The Moodie case is significant case because he was a governor elected by the people. However, he was never impeached and removed by an order of a court because he was ineligible. Obama can very well be removed by a court via the Quo Warranto. Ineligibility is different because impeachment is for crimes and treason. Since being ineligible is not a crime, the Quo Warranto exists for the very purpose of addressing those who are in office that are ineligible to be there.
elspeth says:
February 3, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I really don’t get “it”. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/feb/02/tennessee-gops-ramsey-says-hes-unsure-obama-citize/?breakingnews
Full disclosure!
___________________________________________________________________
In the spirit of “full disclosure” below is what Mr. Ramsay acually said…
“I’ve got a tableful of advisers sitting over there and they’ll probably start cringing right about now when I start talking about some of this stuff right here. I’m going to tell you something. I don’t know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or not. I don’t know what the whole deal is there. But I’m going to tell you something. When you walk out on the street down, people don’t really care about this issue. I’m all about winning elections, not as Republicans in this nation but also as Republicans in this state of Tennessee. We need to be about creating jobs. We need to be talking about how we’re the best in education. We need to be talking about how we are small business people We need to be talking about how we’re fiscal conservatives and we know how to balance the budget and Democrats don’t.”
Although he seem to be a birther, the most important line in the article is where he points out that “people don’t really care about this issue”. Which more goes to show that more people are worried about jobs and the economy than wacky unsubstantianted conspiracy theories about so called Kenyan births…
It seems like the actual birther in the room is actually Maclin Davis, the former attorney for the state Republican Party and a partner in the prestigious firm of Waller Lansden. He seems to be pushing the issue. Look at how he loads his question…Maybe he thinks it can get votes?
Davis said the following:
“Now since the Republicans control both houses of the Tennessee legislature, it seems to me that they might consider passing a state law that says in all future elections no candidate for president can be put on the ballot in Tennessee unless they produce positive proof they are a native-born citizen. If we had one like that a few years ago, we’d be a whole lot better off today. Is there any chance that you would consider that?”
and
“It seems like it would be really good if somebody would file a suit against our present president to get back all the money he’s been paid as president on the grounds he’s not a legitimate president since he’s not a native-born citizen. The great preponderance of the evidence is he’s not a citizen. …”
http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2010/02/ron_ramsey_i_dont_know_whether.php
Benaiah says:
February 3, 2010 at 2:17 am
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.
The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.
The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 [At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874]; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.
The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the dissenting opinion of Scott v. Sandford, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1814 relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues, and stated in The Venus, “The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘…The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”
Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives
…The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874)
“ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President’… The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Simply put, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”…
To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States.
Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.
Thus, Obama is not “eligible to the office of President”.
Add to this creditable list rebuting the oppositions adherence to the English Common Law;
Politics (Aristotle)
Book III
Who is a citizen?
“He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state; and speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purpose of life. But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say two or three or more grandparents.”
Simply to show the the Father of the Laws of Nature, Natural Law, The Law of Nations and Common Law theories penned this in 350 B.C.E.
John says:
February 3, 2010 at 2:59 pm
The Moodie case is significant case because he was a governor elected by the people. However, he was never impeached and removed by an order of a court because he was ineligible. Obama can very well be removed by a court via the Quo Warranto. Ineligibility is different because impeachment is for crimes and treason. Since being ineligible is not a crime, the Quo Warranto exists for the very purpose of addressing those who are in office that are ineligible to be there.
____________________________________________________________________
John, your ignorance of the law is showing. You realize why the QW statute won’t be successful against the President, right? It is a little pesky document known as the Constitution. And in it what does it say are the only ways the lawfully elected President can be removed? I believe it is resignation and impeachment. So your fantasy about QW being successful against the sitting President is just that, a fantasy. QW cannot be brought against a sitting President because the President’s and VP’s jobs are the only ones specifically protected this way by the Constitution. So QW is meaningless. But don’t believe me. See if you can find a legal professional not named Leo, Mario, orly, or any other birther that really thinks that this sort of suit will be successful against the President.
1:10-cv-00151-RCL TAITZ v. OBAMA
Royce C. Lamberth, presiding
Date filed: 01/27/2010
Date of last filing: 02/02/2010
History
Doc.
No. Dates Description
Filed: 01/27/2010
Entered: 01/28/2010
Summons Issued as to AUSA
1
Filed: 01/27/2010
Entered: 01/28/2010
Complaint
2
Filed: 01/27/2010
Entered: 01/28/2010
Notice of Related Case
3
Filed: 01/27/2010
Entered: 01/28/2010
Affidavit
4
Filed: 01/27/2010
Entered: 01/28/2010
Summons Returned Executed as to US Attorney for DC
5
Filed: 01/27/2010
Entered: 01/28/2010
Summons Returned Executed as to Attorney General
6
Filed: 02/02/2010
Entered: 02/03/2010
Motion to Intervene
Full docket text for document 6:
MOTION to Intervene by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (rdj)
There are only 2 ways the POTUS can be removed from office: Impeachment or by some disability. If the POTUS dies, then the removal is automatic. However, if a disability occurs, Congress can take certain steps to remove the POTUS from office. Obama’s eligiblity is believed to be a disability and not crime so impeachment doesn’t really apply. The Quo Warranto is there for the purpose to address any concerns the people have if they believe an elected official is not eligible to the office. The Quo Warranto is usually brought by the AG but if he fails to act, it is possible for a 3rd party to intervene. Orly is attempting to intervene as that 3rd party. The AG has absolutely refused to respond. The only problem I see is that the court might throw up the barrier and say since AG has neither accepted or refused nothing can be done until he makes a choice. And of course, the AG is not going to respond either way. Orly may also run into the problem of standing.
John -
The biggest problem any of y’all would face with a QW suit is that the authority by which the President holds his office is the vote of the Electoral College and the certification of that vote by Congress.
If a QW suit somehow got by all of the issues that make it virtually certain to fail right now: The AG won’t bring the suit, QW likely cannot be brought against the President, no one else is an “interested party,” etc., all the President would have to do would be to show the certified EC vote totals and the affidavit of his swearing in by the CJ. Under the Constitution, those are the parties that decide presidential eligibility – and they HAVE.
Also, birthers should take note of the lawyer who asked the question to the Lt. Gov of TN.
He said: “Now since the Republicans control both houses of the Tennessee legislature, it seems to me that they might consider passing a state law that says in all future elections no candidate for president can be put on the ballot in Tennessee unless they produce positive proof they are a native-born citizen.”
Catch that? “Unless they produce positive proof they are a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN.”
With “heroes” like that, it’s a wonder any of y’all still continue this stuff…
slcraig says:
February 3, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Benaiah says:
February 3, 2010 at 2:17 am
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.
The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.
The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 [At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874]; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.
The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the dissenting opinion of Scott v. Sandford, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”
___________________________________________________________________
Steve, you do realize why no one responds to Benaeiah, right? He loses all credibility by posting the DISSENTING OPINION in Wong to somehow support his ridiculous argument. Poor Benaiah doesn’t realize that the dissenting opinion in a SCOTUS case is meaningless, especially in a case that the dissent lost 6-2. And then he compounds his mistake by then posting SCOTUS rulings that came BEFORE Wong, forgetting that in the law, the most recent case takes precedent. Sometimes you cannot makes this stuff up.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Justice Gray wrote that:
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
“The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
In Re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawyer 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905 (Fed. Cir. (Ca.) 1884)
“After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added, that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. In illustration of this general understanding, he mentions the fact, that when at an election an inquiry is made whether the person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country the answer is received as conclusive that he is a citizen; that no one inquires further; no one asks whether his [582] parents were citizens or foreigners; it is enough that he was born here whatever was the status of his parents. He shows also that legislative expositions on the subject speak but one language, and he cites to that effect not only the laws of the United States, but the statutes of a great number of the States, and establishes conclusively that there is on this subject a concurrence of legislative declaration with judicial opinion, and that both accord with the general understanding of the profession and of the public.”
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866)
Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’ 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583
“After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.”
“… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic…” Attorney General Edward Bates in 1862
Black Lion, I disagree. There is a controversy over Obama’s qualifications or you wouldn’t be here debating the issues with others for so very long.
This controversy deals with “legal” issues. Legal issues are settled by courts. All that is required is for two opposing sides in a legal argument to take their case to court so the court can determine, in this case, whether someone “meets the requirements of the Constitution.” You say Obama “meets the requirements,” but what you think and what a court will say may be two entirely different things once the facts are completely disclosed and the arguments are decided by the court. The court could side with what I might argue rather than what you believe.
There is case material present in this controversy. All that is needed is someone with the proper standing to petition for a writ of quo warranto in the D.C. District Court. It would proceed onward from that point.
Until all the evidence is heard, no legal expert or constitutional scholar could absolutely determine an outcome, and would not even venture a guess at such, because there never has been such a case in history dealing with the office of president.
You are correct. The D.C. District Court has original jurisdiction to hear a quo warranto case agsinst Obama. State courts have nothing to do with a quo warranto action against a president. D.C. District Court is where the case would be filed. That is where discovery would take place. That is the forum wherein it would be determined whether or not Obama was LEGALLY eligible to be a valid candidate in the 2008 election for the office of president.
If Obama was found to be legally ineligible by the court, and to have NOT been a valid candidate on the ballot, that decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the D.C. Court judgment is upheld, most likely the writ would be presented to Congress which would then have the “goods” to proceed onward with an impeachment. Congress does not, and will never, take up impeachment when the sole reason for impeachment is over a “legality,” particularly one that only lends itself to settlement through a quo warranto action in a court for a legal determination.
Don’t confuse the “de facto officer doctrine” with the quo warranto proceeding. One comes into play after the other is decided. The “de facto officer doctrine” comes into play where a usurper is removed from office and the question becomes whether or not what he/she did during his/her time of usurpation is legally valid and binding.
What legal experts and constitutional scholars have to say is always a good place to start, but is not a final judgment on a matter. The facts of every case are different. What plays out legally in a court depends on the facts discovered too. This would be a case of first impression with no prior case history to access. It would be the ploughing of undisturbed ground from beginning to end.
Maybe this will help:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/02/hi-attorney-generals-office-refuses-to-corroborate-obamas-hi-birth/
Contrary to the headline, “Precedent Exists for Courts to Qualify Public Executives,” no such legal precedent exists.
In Eldridge Cleaver’s case, various secretarys of state removed his named from state ballots. (See Cleaver v. Jordan, 393 U.S. 810 (1968) (denying cert.); Jones v. Gill, 446 P.2d 558 (Haw. 1968); In re Garst, 294 N.Y.S.2d 33 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1968).) In none of those cases, however, did the courts “qualify” (or disqualify) Cleaver, or did they even expressly approve of the secretarys of state’s actions. In the only case actually brought by Cleaver (the California case), the California Supreme Court (and SCOTUS) did not get involved at all (other than to deny Cleaver’s petitions without comment).
In Thomas Moodie’s case, the state Attorney General filed a petition for writ of quo warranto. Such a petition was expressly authorized by then-section 87 of the North Dakota Constitution. With respect to POTUS, a state court cannot remove POTUS. And there are exactly only two attorneys (Donofrio and Taitz) who think the D.C. Code quo warranto section applies to POTUS — even Apuzzo knows it doesn’t.
John says:
February 3, 2010 at 3:11 pm
There are only 2 ways the POTUS can be removed from office: Impeachment or by some disability. If the POTUS dies, then the removal is automatic. However, if a disability occurs, Congress can take certain steps to remove the POTUS from office. Obama’s eligiblity is believed to be a disability and not crime so impeachment doesn’t really apply. The Quo Warranto is there for the purpose to address any concerns the people have if they believe an elected official is not eligible to the office. The Quo Warranto is usually brought by the AG but if he fails to act, it is possible for a 3rd party to intervene. Orly is attempting to intervene as that 3rd party. The AG has absolutely refused to respond. The only problem I see is that the court might throw up the barrier and say since AG has neither accepted or refused nothing can be done until he makes a choice. And of course, the AG is not going to respond either way. Orly may also run into the problem of standing.
___________________________________________________________________
John, close but no cigar. First of all the President can only be removed by Congress via impeachment. Period. If he is disabled, then a vote of the cabinet can remove him and give the VP power. The President can resign or die in office. But nowhere does it say that a QW statute can remove the President. Again when a federal law comes into conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins out. It this case it is not a conflct as much as a interpretation. The federal QW statute say federal officer in DC, not the President. The Constitution states the only way the President can be removed. So Orly’s motion is doomed for failure. I think by next year when all of the cases go 0 for 100 people will finally realize that the President is Barack Obama and he will be President to at least 2013.
elspeth says:
February 3, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Maybe this will help:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/02/hi-attorney-generals-office-refuses-to-corroborate-obamas-hi-birth/
____________________________________________________________________
Help how? Show everyone how Charlton at the Post and Fail makes things up? All the Assistant AG stated was that she was unable to answer his questions. And from that Charlton in a case of yellow journalism makes up a conclusion to fit his assertion. She never said that Dr. Fukino was not authorized to make the statement. In the real world no statement would be issued without the Governor and AG signing off on it. So to imply that there is something irregular with the statement is just wishful thinking on the part of Charlton. He just makes things up. Amazing.
All we can telll from the Article below is that the state Assistant AG refuses to comment on the matter. And because of that the last official statement by Dr. Fukino stands. “Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii”.
“Nagamine, in response, asserted that any answer to such questions given by her office would represent a conflict of interest for her office. And that is an explicit admission that Dr. Fukino had no statutory authority nor duty to make such a statement, and that the Attorney General’s office will not stand behind Fukino’s claim that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen.” It is such, because if Fukino’s declaration had legal weight of any kind, surely a response to my questions would have corroborated that without such a conflict-of-interest scenario. You only have a conflict if the Fukino claim would not be supported by a Nagamine response.”
John says:
February 3, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Black Lion, I disagree. There is a controversy over Obama’s qualifications or you wouldn’t be here debating the issues with others for so very long.
This controversy deals with “legal” issues. Legal issues are settled by courts. All that is required is for two opposing sides in a legal argument to take their case to court so the court can determine, in this case, whether someone “meets the requirements of the Constitution.” You say Obama “meets the requirements,” but what you think and what a court will say may be two entirely different things once the facts are completely disclosed and the arguments are decided by the court. The court could side with what I might argue rather than what you believe.
___________________________________________________________________
John, not true. The only controversy exists in the mind of the birthers. There is no “controversy” in the mind of the 535 members of Congress or there would someone calling for impeachment.
And the main issue is that you feel that QW is applicable to the President and I am telling you that legally it is not. No legal scholar nor constitutional professional believes that QW can be successfully used against the President because of the specific Constitutional requirements set forth in the Constitution. I am telling you that orly and ever other QW case will fail because of that.
You can believe what you wish. I prefer to go with the law and legal precedent. And no QW has ever been brought against any President and nor will one ever be successfully brought against one. That is a legal issue. In other words legally QW will be as successful as Orly last cases. Meaning losers.
RE BL
[...] All we can telll from the Article below is that the state Assistant AG refuses to comment on the matter. And because of that the last official statement by Dr. Fukino stands. “Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii”. [...]
Bl, I understand that you are a dedicated Obamaton, but haven’t you painted y/self in a corner with “Dr. Fukino stands. “Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii.” ?
Can you show when and where Fukino came with such a categorical statement regarding Obama’s place of issuance?
Regards -
I still disagree. The 25th Admendment addresses POTUS disability and Obama’s ineligibility doesn’t apply under impeachment because impeachment is for crimes and treason. The fact that Obama’s ineligible is not a crime he can be impeached for. However, it is a disability which can remove from office without impeachment proceedings. Obama is a federal office in the DC area so the Quo Warranto does apply. In any case, the idea of Quo Warranto does seem to have merit with a few consitutional scholars:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123428
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, an organization founded by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, previously told WND the demand was a legitimate course of action.
She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president,” he told WND when the issue first arose. “In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.’”
According to the online Constitution.org resource: “The common law writ of Quo Warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”
I think John Carlton is stating that since the AG refuses to affirm Fukino’s statements, Fukino’s state are therfore not credible because they have no coorboration from any authortitive sources.
John Carlton’s questions we simple:
Q. 1: Does the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have any statutory duty or authority to define the citizenship status of anyone whose vital record(s) are kept by that department?
Q.2: According to the legal references employed by your office, what is the defition of a “natural-born citizen” of the United States of America?
How can these consitute a conflict of interest if what Fukino is supposely stating is true.
The only conclusion is the one the Carlton has reached.
Black Lion: There is extreme irony in your calling upon the Constitution. To wit:
“It is a little pesky document known as the Constitution. And in it what does it say are the only ways the lawfully elected President can be removed?”
“No legal scholar nor constitutional professional believes that QW can be successfully used against the President because of the specific Constitutional requirements set forth in the Constitution.”
“pesky document?”
What does it say about the requirements to be POTUS?
“Because of the SPECIFIC Constitutional REQUIREMENTS set forth in the Constitution?”
Savor the irony, people.
btw, Black Lion, didn’t Leo Donofrio already identify a POTUS who tricked his way into the Oval Office? And I don’t mean Obama.
John quoted John Eidsmoe saying:
“She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president,” he told WND when the issue first arose. “In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.’”
As I have stated many times here: the authority is the vote of the Electoral College and the certification of the correctness of that vote by the Congress. That, and the oath administered by the Chief Justice.
Even IF the DC Court allowed the case to go forward (very doubtful) AND both the Circuit Court (almost a lock to deny the QW case) and the SCOTUS (100% certain they would find QW cannot be applied to the President) allowed it to go forward after the appeals, all the President would have to do is to submit the evidence of the EC vote, the Congressional certification and his inauguration and… case dismissed!
Ineligibility is unique. It is not a crime but type of disability. Elected officers are impreached for crimes and treason. However, being ineligible is not a crime and therefore is exempt from impeachment proceedings. Although Obama cannot be tried for any crime without an impeachment, he certiainly can be removed for being ineligible. This is where the Quo Warranto comes into play. The Quo Warranto is a type law that designed specifically for persons who are ineligible for position that they hold. If a Quo Warranto did result with Obama being removed from office, you wouldn’t say he was impeached because he committed no crime. Obama would simply be removed due to disability, in this case the fact that he ineligible.
Black Lion, before I answer your lsst post. I posted before on this quo warranto matter as “John.” It appears that my Name is in conflict with another “John” at this time. So, I’ll change my Name to “QW John,” to clear up any confusion.
There is a legitimate quo warranto case for any candidate who was on the ballot for president in the 2008 election, who lost said election. Those individuals would have standing to bring a quo warranto in the D.C. District Court. I doubt that court will find that Ms. Taitz has standing to bring the case before it, but it has already been filed anyway. The only thing such a case would settle is whether or not Obama was a legally qualified candidate for president, under the “natural born citizen” issue.
By this time, even you should be of the opinion “bring it on,” seeing as how confident you are of Obama’s qualifications. It is so obvious, according to you and others, that it would be a “slam dunk” for a court decision proving that the “birthers,” and others who “smell a rat,” are all wrong, legally speaking.
The real problem is no precedent exists for the removal of a POTUS who is ineligible. You can’t impeach Obama bacause he committed no crime.(ineligiblity is not a crime.) Therefore, the court can derive a legal mechanism to remove an ineligible POTUS. The Quo Warranto certianly provide some legal mechanism to accomplish this.
If Congree refuses to act, the courts or the people must intervene. However, consider this. What if the POTUS had a heart attack and was unable to fulfill his duties. Congress would make the VP the POTUS. But what if the Congress decided not to act. The country would be without a president, but putting that aside for the moment,what could be done to compell Congress to act. According the courts, they say to can’t intervene. What would happen? Would the country continue to go and be pungled in anarchy. Who knows? The court’s position that they can’t intervene does sound ridiculous when you think about it. In this situation, according to courts you would have to wait until congress reelection and then vote new a congress in. Hopefully they would act.
RE John:
[...] Although Obama cannot be tried for any crime without an impeachment, he certiainly can be removed for being ineligible. [...].
Not really, John – and while the eligibility matter is clearly obscure (sic!), there is great legal jeopardy hovering over dba Obama’s and his associates’ heads -
… that is, Obama’s BIG TIME FRAUD, like electioneering and FUNDRISING for purposes directly related to his seeking political election, while FULLY AWARE OF HIS INEGIBILITY FOR THE POSITION IN CAUSE -
700 million dollars is not little thing, John – and dba Obama’s vaunted prowess in this operation might well be the thing that will overturn him -
Dba Obama needs to prove that he didn’t rise that money under false pretense – i.e that he, AT THAT TIME WAS QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION HE WAS RUNNING FOR -
So while all other actions trying to clear Obama’s illegitimacy might be deflected by courts and congress for whatever political reasons, this approach will force him to prove his identity -
And the beautiful side in this approach is that:
1) the net cast around Obama will get also an entire shoal of crooks who were also aware of his ineligibility -
2) and this action has long claws too, since the statute of limitations for financial fraud is…?
… so we can get him even in 2020 –
Remember, Al Capone wasn’t nailed down for murders, racketering or other crimes – it was his taxes that put him behind bars -
Nice precedent – also happening in Chicago -
Regards -
A person running for office that does not satisfy the requirements to be a valid candidate for that office is ineligible to be on the ballot.
If that person gets by the vetting process and does get his/her name on the ballot, and gets elected, his/her election is invalid from the beginning [ab intitio].
Nevertheless, this individual gets certified by the Board of Elections [Electoral College] and is sworn in [by Chief Justice] and assumes the seat, that assumption of the seat is invalid, illegal, forfeited, vacated, even though the reality of such may not be readily known at the time.
If it is determined later, through a quo warranto action, that this person was not a legitimate candidate, then the votes cast for that candidate are voided; no matter how many votes were cast for him/her; no matter how many times he/she was sworn in; no matter how many times his/her election was certified by different entities. He/she was illegal ab initio.
When it comes to the position of president, under these circumstances, if Obama is found to have not been a valid candidate to be on the ballot in 2008, which only a civil court can adjudicate, then he will need to be removed. His removal would be necesssary at that time because it would be clear he does not have the legal power and authority to act as President. The acts he did perform as “president” would most likey be considered valid under the doctrine of “de facto officer.” But that too would most likely end up in court, particularly on things like any treaties executed, etc.
If it can be shown that Obama consciously knew he was not eligible, yet persisted in going forward to defraud, then that would be criminal in nature, possibly calling for the impeachment process, but not disability because that would be disenfranchising the other candidates who ran in the same position in the election. His election would have illegally deprived one of the other valid candidates rightful claim of the position. The quo warranto writ would probably have enough intrinsic legitimacy on its face to remove Obama.
Impeachment or removal on disability would deny all the other candidates, running for the same position in 2008, due process at the very least, with the only other just remedy being a special election for president out of the remaining valid candidates.
Black Lion says:
February 3, 2010 at 3:08 pm
John says:
February 3, 2010 at 2:59 pm
The Moodie case is significant case because he was a governor elected by the people. However, he was never impeached and removed by an order of a court because he was ineligible. Obama can very well be removed by a court via the Quo Warranto. Ineligibility is different because impeachment is for crimes and treason. Since being ineligible is not a crime, the Quo Warranto exists for the very purpose of addressing those who are in office that are ineligible to be there.
____________________________________________________________________
John, your ignorance of the law is showing. You realize why the QW statute won’t be successful against the President, right? It is a little pesky document known as the Constitution. And in it what does it say are the only ways the lawfully elected President can be removed? I believe it is resignation and impeachment. So your fantasy about QW being successful against the sitting President is just that, a fantasy. QW cannot be brought against a sitting President because the President’s and VP’s jobs are the only ones specifically protected this way by the Constitution. So QW is meaningless. But don’t believe me. See if you can find a legal professional not named Leo, Mario, orly, or any other birther that really thinks that this sort of suit will be successful against the President.
Ahhh..urrr..ummm…ya’know….I don’t think you are quit correct…..but if you can show me the exemption for the office of POTUS in the Quo Warranto Statutes that the CONGRESS Authorized and Delegated to the USDC DC covering ALL US Guv Offices within the FEDERAL ZONE……….of course there is the qustion of ‘Can an Office of the US Guv that has been Usurped by an ineligible person be said to be part of the US Guv?…….Oh, lookout sarc attack..
What Black Lion states about Obama is the exact underlying problem with Obama’s status as president. Black Lion said, referring to Obama, that he is the “lawfully elected President.”
The only way Obama could ever be a “lawfully elected President” is if he was first a LAWFULLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATE. That is the main issue and focus of a quo warranto petition. If Obama was not lawfully qualified to be a valid candidate for the office, he could never be a “lawfully elected” president, no matter how many times he was voted for, certified, and/or sworn in.
The only way we, that is, all of us, on both sides of this controversy, will ever know if Obama was legally qualified to run for the office, is after a court determines whether or not Obama met the mandatory, strict requirement of being a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.
John says:
February 3, 2010 at 4:52 pm
I still disagree. The 25th Admendment addresses POTUS disability and Obama’s ineligibility doesn’t apply under impeachment because impeachment is for crimes and treason. The fact that Obama’s ineligible is not a crime he can be impeached for. However, it is a disability which can remove from office without impeachment proceedings. Obama is a federal office in the DC area so the Quo Warranto does apply. In any case, the idea of Quo Warranto does seem to have merit with a few consitutional scholars:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123428
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, an organization founded by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, previously told WND the demand was a legitimate course of action.
She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president,” he told WND when the issue first arose. “In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.’”
According to the online Constitution.org resource: “The common law writ of Quo Warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”
Here is the DC CODE Authorized by CONGRESS…………..
Chapter 35. Quo Warranto.
Subchapter I. Actions Against Officers of the United States.
Subchapter II. Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia.
Subchapter III. Procedures and Judgments.
Subchapter I. Actions Against Officers of the United States.
II DC CODE T. 16, Ch. 35, Subch. I, Refs & Annos
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
http://weblinks.westlaw.com/toc/default.aspx?Abbr=dc%2Dst%2Dweb&Action=ExpandTree&AP=N13447380913C11DB9BCF9DAC28345A2A&ItemKey=N13447380913C11DB9BCF9DAC28345A2A&RP=%2Ftoc%2Fdefault%2Ewl&Service=TOC&RS=WEBL10.01&VR=2.0&SPa=DCC-1000&pbc=4BF3FCBE&fragment#N13447380913C11DB9BCF9DAC28345A2A
REMOVAL is a PROCESS that CAN BE separate and distinct from IMPEACHMENT.
It can be surmised that the Congress thought it prudent to have the Quo Warranto Statute available in the instance were a ‘sitting Congress’ with the Majority of a the same party as a person who may otherwise be considered for impeachment could still be REMOVED without the Congress.
It CAN NOT be said that the Judicial Branch are not DELIGATED to ENFORCE the ACTS of CONGRESS.
STOP THE LIES.
That said, the bar is very high with puppets and fellow travelers surrounding the ’0′ in offices of authority supporting, protecting and defending the ’0′, instead of the Constitution.
John says:
No, but the Vice President and the Cabinet could declare the President unable discharge the office and then the VP would act as President. If the President later declares himself able and the VP and Cabinet disagree, then Congress decides whether the President can resume office.
No John, your fantasy situation sounds ridiculous. Has it occurred to you that you could actually *read* the Constitution? See the 25′th Amendment. Judging Presidential incapacity goes first to the executive branch, then in the case of disagreement to congress and not to the courts.
jvn,
Let’s once again follow the nuances of the general topic, shall we?
The Judiciary — be it the State or federal level — cannot per se remove any chief executive at any level, and I have repeatedly stated this point. In fact, I specifically stated in this posting that such an act of removal (at the federal level) would be unconstitutional and is a point on which I agree with the opposition.
The point is that there is absolutely nothing that is stated anywhere in any law across America that says that the Judiciary, at any level, cannot make a finding that a given candidate or current office holder is ineligible. Remember that whole “there’s no statute of limitations on eligibility” thing?
Next, we’re talking about State-level jurisdictions here, one of which just happens to be in the same State in which Mr. Kreep has his case. Therefore, unless the precedent were accepted and used in a federal Court, it remains at the State level and not applicable, per se, to other States. However:
I don’t think anyone would say with absolute certainty that such precedent “must” be used in such a case as this. Rather, if the Judiciary is to employ stare decisis and other such rules, there’s no reason why Mr. Kreep could not give the precedent a try. That is, after all, upon what many petitions are based.
-Phil
Black Lion,
Would you please explain to me and this site how it is that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 is any different in terms of what you seem to term judicial “hesitancy” than the most recent ruling of Citizens United v. FEC vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment?
Both are constitutional issues, are they not?
-Phil
Black Lion,
What if a quo warranto action were to result in the determination of an ineligible President? First of all, are you saying that that could absolutely not happen? And, secondly, would you be willing to admit that, in such a theoretical circumstance, what the Judiciary finds to be true is completely exclusive of the Legislative branch, which would be the only branch capable of officially removing the President?
-Phil
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
kThis would seem to include Obama. (The POTUS)
Phil says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:05 pm
jvn,
Phil -
Are you saying that because the Supreme Court of North Dakota once removed a Governor of North Dakota because he was ineligible that the federal courts MUST follow that precedent and take one of these cases?
Let’s once again follow the nuances of the general topic, shall we?
The Judiciary — be it the State or federal level — cannot per se remove any chief executive at any level, and I have repeatedly stated this point. In fact, I specifically stated in this posting that such an act of removal (at the federal level) would be unconstitutional and is a point on which I agree with the opposition.
The point is that there is absolutely nothing that is stated anywhere in any law across America that says that the Judiciary, at any level, cannot make a finding that a given candidate or current office holder is ineligible. Remember that whole “there’s no statute of limitations on eligibility” thing?
Next, we’re talking about State-level jurisdictions here, one of which just happens to be in the same State in which Mr. Kreep has his case. Therefore, unless the precedent were accepted and used in a federal Court, it remains at the State level and not applicable, per se, to other States. However:
I don’t think anyone would say with absolute certainty that such precedent “must” be used in such a case as this. Rather, if the Judiciary is to employ stare decisis and other such rules, there’s no reason why Mr. Kreep could not give the precedent a try. That is, after all, upon what many petitions are based.
-Phil
I am confused by the intransigence of not respecting the Congress as the Promulgator of the Laws under the Constitution.
They ESTABLISHED the Judiciary.
The USDC DC is not a Podunk Justice of the Peace Office just because they, for years, administered the Municipal Government of Washington DC.
The USDC DC CODE is a derivative of the Mandates of Law promulgated by the Congress.
Congress wrote and voted on the Quo Warranto Statutes. Then they DELEGATED its Authority to the USDC DC.
Where does anyone see UN-Constitutionality of the Congress, who has the Authority of Impeachment, and/or Removal of a sitting POTUS in delegating, for the instance of a ‘Civil’ cause, the TRIAL of Quo Warranto to the USDC DC Court.
It would be improper for the Senate to hold a ‘civil trial’ without the House voting on Articles of Impeachment, which, in the instance of the necessity of a trial to determine the facts, would be unable to do, ergo, Quo Warranto.
That said, with the finding of the facts that the ‘defendant’ is guilty of the Civil offense a Writ of Execution would most likely be delivered to the Congress which could proceed with them alone or add to them for a truncated Impeachment, or simply Remove the guilty party by the Writ of Execution and calling it a Writ of Execution of Impeachment by DELEGATED TRIAL.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TejasKat: RT @trsol: New Post: #eligibility: Keyes v. Bowen Appealed: Precedent Exists for Courts to Qualify Public Executives http://bit.ly/9G7tVl…
Where does anyone see UN-Constitutionality of the Congress, who has the Authority of Impeachment, and/or Removal of a sitting POTUS in delegating, for the instance of a ‘Civil’ cause, the TRIAL of Quo Warranto to the USDC DC Court.
Even “Constitutional Scholar” Mario Apuzzo knows it isn’t a delegable duty.
Bob says:
February 3, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Where does anyone see UN-Constitutionality of the Congress, who has the Authority of Impeachment, and/or Removal of a sitting POTUS in delegating, for the instance of a ‘Civil’ cause, the TRIAL of Quo Warranto to the USDC DC Court.
Even “Constitutional Scholar” Mario Apuzzo knows it isn’t a delegable duty.
I beg your pardon, Clinton was sued in ‘civil court’.
I will back peddle a bit although as I did try to open the ‘end result process’ to discussion.
Let’s say a ‘civil action Quo Warranto is allowed by the USDC DC by ANY Atty, as Ex Relator, on behalf of a ‘peculiar interested person’. The question to be tried is the ‘defendants’ eligibility to do a certain act that harmed that certain individual. The ‘defendant’, for whatever reason, is unable to satisfy the court and jury of his eligibility. Judgement is ordered against the ‘defendant’. The Ex Relator asks the Court to issue a Writ of execution to remove the ‘defendant’ from the office of which he is not eligible to hold. The Writ of Execution is delivered to the Congress with a request for direction on how to proceed with the fulfillment of the Writ of Execution in that the TRIAL BY THE SENATE IS MOOT, insofar as an IMPEACHMENT is concerned.
Or something along those lines.
QW John says:
By now, even you should have faced reality. The slam-dunk happened long ago, but eligibility deniers have just heaped slam after slam upon themselves. As you read this thread, note the *vast* difference between the courts in the eligibility deniers’ imaginations and what real judges on real courts really say.
A few examples from real courts in eligibility cases:
“Federal law establishes the procedure for election of the President and Vice President and establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15. Petitioners’ belief in the importance of their arguments is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.” — Keyes v. Bowen
“The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
“To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the ‘political question doctrine’ as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.” — Kerchner v. Obama
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.” — Barnett v. Obama
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” — Ankeny v. Daniels
“Counsel [Orly Taitz] makes these allegations although a ‘short-form’ birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” — Rhodes v. MacDonald
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to show that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do.” — Hollister v. Soetoro
“Plaintiff’s first attempt to involve a federal district court in this ongoing conspiracy theory [...]” — Cook v Simtech
Attn.: jvn, Byrgenon and Sue
brygenon said: “I think it was your false facts and extreme gullibility that earned you most of the condescension. February 1, 2010 at 8:41 pm”
You pretty much teamed up against me. I was hoping that I could have an intelligent and civil conversation, respecting each other’s views. When you start using personal terms like having “extreme gullibility” it is difficult to carry on a polite conversation. I am not engaging in a name calling contest.
I fully agree with Phil’s latest post. One of his central themes here, as mine was in the last thread, is that the Judicial Branch can define nbc and rule on eligibility; however the JB can not remove a sitting president. Hope you are not going label Phil having “extreme gullibility”.
RE: misanthropicus said: February 3, 2010 at 9:49 am
“The asymmetry of this process is an absurdity – and the glaring loopholes in the system clearly allow for unqualified candidates to bypass without many risks background checks that not even bus drivers are allowed to skip –“
Don’t blame the loopholes. The founders did a fantastic job, creating the most successful political document on this planet. The founders could not imagine the level of moral corruption and the “dereliction of duty” (as Alen Keyes put it) of the Judicial Branch, the state officials, Congress and the media. Consider that the first three entities mentioned took oaths to protect and uphold the constitution. What do they do instead? They make the same constitution unenforceable, using technicalities.
Welcome USA to the league of banana republic nations.
Phil,
Do the Electors have subpoena power?
If they don’t than the idea (or ruling) that they have the duty to vet is totally impractical and unenforceable. In fact one of the political party officials used that (not having subpoena power) as an excuse for not vetting candidates.
So if neither a party nor the Electors can vet, then all they can do is ask the Judicial Branch do it for them. However, the Judicial Branch says it is not their job, the parties and the Electors should do it. So we came in full circle.
Or you see it differently?
elspeth says:
February 3, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Maybe this will help:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/02/hi-attorney-generals-office-refuses-to-corroborate-obamas-hi-birth/
… no elspeth it won’t help at all. I read your link and it is laughable. Another made up controversy from the Post and Fail, a source of information even less reliable than Orly Taitz’s fantasy website. You will note that there is no direct quote at all, merely an extrapolation from a polite refusal to engage with birther nonsense. As the Republican AG has already confirmed Fukino’s statement there is nothing further to debate. You are happy to rely on hearsay when it is a birther, but not a direct quote from the Hawaiian official in charge. Interresting.
I understand you guys having a hard time reconciling the possibility of the Congress delegating its power of removing a sitting POTUS, BUT THEY ALREADY HAVE.
Read Sec. 8 again,
Articles !.
Section 3.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
Section 8.
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
IANAL, but it is my understanding the purpose of the appeals process was for the appeals court to rule on the lower court’s decision.
It is also my understanding the “practice of law” by competent, credible lawyers, in a court of law, is NOT “throwing crap against the wall to see if it will stick.”
http://www.californiaappeals.com/lawyer/Civil_Appeals_Process.html
Civil Appeals Process
excerpt
Designation of the appellate record
“The “record” on appeal is the universe of material about what took place in the trial court. For the most part, the parties can only make arguments based on what is in the record. If something is not in the record, it generally does not exist for appellate purposes.”
“The party bringing the appeal has the responsibility to designate what goes into the record, although the other side can add their own designation if important things were left out. As a general rule, the Court of Appeal will only reverse where error is apparent in the record. All presumptions are indulged to support an appealed order on matters as to which the record is silent. The proper compilation of the record is, therefore, crucial.”
Dennis says:
Dennis, you brought us Kenneth E. Lamb’s bigotry, asking, “Is Mr. BHO ‘African-American’ as defined in United States law?” Lamb’s analysis is false, fabricated, and blatantly racist, but Dennis, you spread it here and asked, “Why is the fact that Mr. Obama is only 6.25% African Black not reported?”
How do you justify spreading those racist lies? Gullibility was the *nicest* explanation I could think of, but it would have to be extreme, because had you spent even ten minutes Googling up info on Lamb and his claims, you would have found he has no evidence at all. Even the “United States law” Lamb refers to does not exist.
If you find my language condescending, impolite, and disrespectful, you take me correctly.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/meroni-et-al-v-mchenry-county-grand-jury-docket/
“Meroni et al v. McHenry County Grand Jury – Docket February 4, 2010
Thanks to Tes from Politijab we now have a more complete overview of a new filing by Sharon Meroni which is going nowhere so far.
Meroni et al v. McHenry County Grand Jury Foreman and Grand Jury Members, Case No. 09MR399, filed in 22nd Judicial Circuit for McHenry County, IL.”
more here: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/meroni-et-al-v-mchenry-county-grand-jury-docket/
Debunking Orly’s ‘memo on Quo Warranto’ February 2, 2010
“Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Orly Taitz.
trackback
Orly has written a Memo in which she repeats many of her claims about Quo Warranto. I have taken some time to explain why she is wrong on most counts. Enjoy…”
more here: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/debunking-orlys-memo-on-quo-warranto/
Phil wrote:
I’ll say that, absolutely. Much as the federal quo warranto statute gets talked up on eligibility-denier blogs, no such case will result in the Court determining President Obama is not eligible. I’ve been accused (falsely) of moving goal posts, so there’s a marker I’ll set in written stone.
[One caveat: We're talking about Article II eligibility. If President Obama serves a second term, and a quo warranto case or petition is pending at the end of his second term, the Court could dismiss it as moot because Obama became ineligible due to the term limits of the 22'nd Amendment. That would not count as a quo warranto action resulting in the determination of an ineligible President.]
It won’t happen, but taking your hypothetical, here’s how it goes: The case get’s appealed, and the courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court take the case immediately. The result gets over-ruled, but to indulge the fantasy even farther let’s suppose the Supreme Court agrees that the President is not eligible. What happens then? The president resigns before Congress has time start any proceedings.
Eligibility deniers pretend that they are champions for the Constitution, and imagine that everyone else is corrupt/cowardly/treasonous. They have no clue — or less than none — the dedication that the rest of us and our leaders have for the nation and our Constitution.
Steve -
Still waiting for your evidence that the Founders intentionally created two separate classes of native born citizens…
Phil,
Right. Thus the Judiciary cannot *redress* a situation in which the President must be removed. Congress, and only Congress, can.
Phil, the federal courts say otherwise, as you should have seen by now. At least at the federal level, to have subject matter jurisdiction the Court must have the power to redress the matter. We have a detailed explanation, specific to the case at issue, from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Barnett v. Obama. See section ‘B’ “Redressability, Political Question, and Separation of Powers”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD
State judiciaries may deviate from the federal doctrine, but there is an underlying principle that the rule of law requires distinguishing one process of adjudication and correction. The article here is about Keyes v. Bowen, in which The Superior Court of California wrote:
“Federal law establishes the procedure for election of the President and Vice President and establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/keyes-bowen-preliminary.pdf
Phil, you argue that the Judiciary, at any level, could make a finding on President Obama’s eligibility. Whatever your theory of what courts could find, what matters more here in the real world is what real courts really did find.
jvn says:
February 4, 2010 at 6:24 am
Steve -
Still waiting for your evidence that the Founders intentionally created two separate classes of native born citizens…
You leave me no recourse but to say you are a complete idiot.
The Founders did NOT create citizenship or citizenship classes.
That circumstance of belonging to a civil society has existed for thousands of years and was long recognized as being and flowing from the natural condition of men in co-operation and commerce amongst themselves.
That said, the Constitution upon ratification did not make or create a single citizen but rather those persons that were citizens of the various States consented to join in common citizenship as sovereigns of the NEW FORM of Government.
NOT A SINGLE natural born citizen of America existed on that 1st day and I will leave to the debaters to determine if the 1st NBC was born 9 months later or were any number of those born immediately after the ratification. As J. Story had commented in part, ‘it was merely by the lapse of time’..that the natural course of a societies perpetuation of its own began filling the void with NBC’s.
Your simple minded reference to different forms of ‘citizenship’ can only be a consequence of your latent bigotry and unwillingness to be intellectually honest.
There is only one form of AMERICAN Citizenship, but there are multiple paths of obtaining it and it CAN NOT BE DENIED that those paths may vary greatly and that the PATH that one takes is determined by the CIRCUMSTANCES of the individual.
It also can not be denied that the ONLY PATH to American Citizenship that DOES NOT require a promulgated law or Constitutional Amendment in order for an individual to obtain citizenship is that of the birth of a child on US Soil to parents who are both US Citizens their selves.
These are the ‘natural born citizens’ that the Founders anticipated, of these there have NEVER been doubts.
Phil says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Black Lion,
John says:
February 3, 2010 at 2:59 pm
The Moodie case is significant case because he was a governor elected by the people. However, he was never impeached and removed by an order of a court because he was ineligible. Obama can very well be removed by a court via the Quo Warranto. Ineligibility is different because impeachment is for crimes and treason. Since being ineligible is not a crime, the Quo Warranto exists for the very purpose of addressing those who are in office that are ineligible to be there.
____________________________________________________________________
John, your ignorance of the law is showing. You realize why the QW statute won’t be successful against the President, right? It is a little pesky document known as the Constitution. And in it what does it say are the only ways the lawfully elected President can be removed? I believe it is resignation and impeachment. So your fantasy about QW being successful against the sitting President is just that, a fantasy. QW cannot be brought against a sitting President because the President’s and VP’s jobs are the only ones specifically protected this way by the Constitution. So QW is meaningless. But don’t believe me. See if you can find a legal professional not named Leo, Mario, orly, or any other birther that really thinks that this sort of suit will be successful against the President.
What if a quo warranto action were to result in the determination of an ineligible President? First of all, are you saying that that could absolutely not happen? And, secondly, would you be willing to admit that, in such a theoretical circumstance, what the Judiciary finds to be true is completely exclusive of the Legislative branch, which would be the only branch capable of officially removing the President?
-Phil
___________________________________________________________________
Phil, that would assume that a QW action is enforcable against the President. THe QW statute only specifies federal officers in DC. The Constitution specifically designates the only ways the President can be removed. Once the President was sworn in, he is the President. Period. That is why the QW statute cannot be used against the President and any removal of the President becomes the responsibility of Congress. What ifs are nice but the fact remains that the President, once the vote is certified and sworn in, is the President no matter what. And since the mechanism for removal of the President is specifically laid out in the Constitution and that power is only given to Congress, that is why the QW statute cannot be applied.
But to indulge your fantasy, say the SCOTUS (because if any fedeal judge did agree that a QW was able to be brought agains the President, then that case would eventually have to be brought to the SCOTUS) ruled that a QW statute would be enforcable against the President, and such a statute found the President to be ineligible, then the case would have to be remanded to Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. However I would suspect that the President would resign by then and Biden would then become President as per the 25th amendment…
Phil says:
February 3, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Black Lion,
And the ND case was a state eleceted official. The job requirements of President is specifically laid out in the Constitution. The courts are usually hesitant in regards to getting involved in those sorts of issues.
Would you please explain to me and this site how it is that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 is any different in terms of what you seem to term judicial “hesitancy” than the most recent ruling of Citizens United v. FEC vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment?
Both are constitutional issues, are they not?
-Phil
____________________________________________________________________
Phil, simple. Because the job of President and VP are jobs that removal is specifically detailed in the Constitution, and the power of removal is given to Congress. The so called eligibility clause is no longer the issue because Obama is now the President. He is not a candidate for office. So one he is the President, the game has changed from a legal perspective. So while they both might be constitutional issues, the difference is the courts ability to get involved. And the courts so far have be very heistant to get involved in the eligibility issue.
Why, since Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer, not just ask at a news conference, if Obama thinks the citizens of the U.S. have a right to see a candidates original Long Form Birth Certificate without having to sue for it.
Simple!
John says:
February 3, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I think John Carlton is stating that since the AG refuses to affirm Fukino’s statements, Fukino’s state are therfore not credible because they have no coorboration from any authortitive sources.
John Carlton’s questions we simple:
Q. 1: Does the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have any statutory duty or authority to define the citizenship status of anyone whose vital record(s) are kept by that department?
Q.2: According to the legal references employed by your office, what is the defition of a “natural-born citizen” of the United States of America?
How can these consitute a conflict of interest if what Fukino is supposely stating is true.
The only conclusion is the one the Carlton has reached
___________________________________________________________________
It doesn’t matter what you are Charlton thinks. The bottom line is that she declined to answer, so the statement that Dr. Fukino issued is valid. No retraction has been issued nor has any state official come out and disputed what she said. So the only conclusion someone that is not biased can reach is that the statement is valid because Dr. Fukino is the only person authorized to comment and she did. Only on the Post and Fail can a no comment be misconstrued to mean that they are giving an opinion. Amazing.
brygenon says:
February 4, 2010 at 8:02 am
Phil,
The Judiciary — be it the State or federal level — cannot per se remove any chief executive at any level, and I have repeatedly stated this point.
Right. Thus the Judiciary cannot *redress* a situation in which the President must be removed. Congress, and only Congress, can.
The point is that there is absolutely nothing that is stated anywhere in any law across America that says that the Judiciary, at any level, cannot make a finding that a given candidate or current office holder is ineligible.
Phil, the federal courts say otherwise, as you should have seen by now. At least at the federal level, to have subject matter jurisdiction the Court must have the power to redress the matter. We have a detailed explanation, specific to the case at issue, from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Barnett v. Obama. See section ‘B’ “Redressability, Political Question, and Separation of Powers”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD
State judiciaries may deviate from the federal doctrine, but there is an underlying principle that the rule of law requires distinguishing one process of adjudication and correction. The article here is about Keyes v. Bowen, in which The Superior Court of California wrote:
“Federal law establishes the procedure for election of the President and Vice President and establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/keyes-bowen-preliminary.pdf
Phil, you argue that the Judiciary, at any level, could make a finding on President Obama’s eligibility. Whatever your theory of what courts could find, what matters more here in the real world is what real courts really did find.
Well, maybe the difference of view stems more from the terminology.
Just as a Judge does not ‘incarcerate a person’ but rather ‘sentences them to incarceration’ and it is the Penel system that FOLLOWS the Order of the Court.
So in that sense the Court in a Quo Warranto would not be doing the ‘Removing’, as I alluded to in the previous posts.
First you have to accept the fact that a sitting POTUS can be sued in a ‘civil’ trial, which a Quo Warranto is and a circumstance that has been judged as proper when cause sustains the action.
Then you have to accept the fact that a Court is the ‘trier of facts’, which they are.
Then you have to accept the fact that if during the course of the civil action it is determined that the sitting POTUS is not eligible to have obtained or to maintain the office an order of Judgement to that effect could be issued by the court.
Process from there could take any number of courses. With enough Generals on his side he could effect a Coup and close the courts and suspend the Congress…………or, appeal to SCOTUS, who could reverse, remand on some point, or Affirm the Order.
With the facts tried and sustained there would be little left for the House and the Senate to do, but in the end, would have to decide if Impeachment was a necessary process or simply accept the Judgement of the Court as if they were the Articles of Impeachment and Trial by Senate and Affirm the Order of Judgement of Removal for Cause.
Just as the Executive Departments are calling audibles in their attempt to bring Alien Enemy Combatants into the Judicial system, something not ever done before, in the event of a Judgement in a Quo Warranto action I would expect a few audibles in the process of its execution of judgement.
Steve -
I can understand that you are frustrated because your arguments lead you into corners that you cannot get out of.
You seem to forget that the Constitution itself is “promulgated law,” unless you are arguing that “Natural Law” somewhere, somehow decreed that the United States would be established after a revolution, that the Constitution is preordained and that the Founders really didn’t write it so much as accept it on tablets from on high.
Following your “logic” the Founders also didn’t establish a republican form of government – because it didn’t exist on the day the Constitution was ratified, right?
You have claimed that from the ratification of the Constitution forward, only men were native born citizens (unless their father was not a citizen, then they were aliens and not US citizens despite being born in the US, right?). Your claim is that these native born men were also natural born citizens because their mothers – despite her prior citizenship – became citizens because their fathers were… Am I right so far?
So – in your view – the “separation” of native born from natural born only came about after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, at least that’s what I believe you’ve said.
But your view runs counter to history. Everyone born in the United States under the state laws from back when they were colonies were native born citizens, so how can your theory here be correct?
Since you apparently concede that the Founders equated native born and natural born because you refuse to show where they made a distinction, maybe you CAN show us where your view of what it meant to be native born came from?
Re Dennis:
[...] Don’t blame the loopholes. The founders did a fantastic job, creating the most successful political document on this planet. The founders could not imagine the level of moral corruption and the “dereliction of duty” (as Alen Keyes put it) of the Judicial Branch, the state officials, Congress and the media. Consider that the first three entities mentioned took oaths to protect and uphold the constitution. What do they do instead? They make the same constitution unenforceable, using technicalities. [...]
Agree as a general idea – yet a constitution, by its very nature must be sometimes a very general document, whose one or other particular points (sic!) may at a moment in time become anachronistic, or some crevices that can allow unwarranted interpretations -
Umbra, penumbra… how many nuances an impressionist can find in a simple tree shade – and I am certain you are well aware about the impressionists’ camping in the constitutional law quarters -
As far as “level of moral corruption” that allows such dereliction of duty occur – I remember a story circulated during Clinton scandals:
“During Jefferson’s time, a gentleman would have committed suicide if confronted about such a matter -
Right, but Bill Clinton is not a gentleman -”
Here we are -
Regards -
Now
MGB says:
February 3, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Black Lion: There is extreme irony in your calling upon the Constitution. To wit:
“It is a little pesky document known as the Constitution. And in it what does it say are the only ways the lawfully elected President can be removed?”
“No legal scholar nor constitutional professional believes that QW can be successfully used against the President because of the specific Constitutional requirements set forth in the Constitution.”
“pesky document?”
What does it say about the requirements to be POTUS?
“Because of the SPECIFIC Constitutional REQUIREMENTS set forth in the Constitution?”
Savor the irony, people.
___________________________________________________________________
MGB, what’s your point? The people who claim to be protecting the Constitution are the ones that are violating it. They are relying on no factual evidence to make ridiculous claims. And when the courts throw out their ridiculous lawsuits, they then look for ways to go around the constitution in order to achieve their goals.
The President meets all of the requirements as set forth in the Constitution, ergo that is why he is the President. Not one piece of evidence has been presented that suggests otherwise. And as the President he has specific job protections. Meaning he is protected from cranks filing incorrect and unfactual lawsuits under a statute that does not apply to him. The irony is how long will it take until you realize that.
MGB says:
February 3, 2010 at 5:03 pm
btw, Black Lion, didn’t Leo Donofrio already identify a POTUS who tricked his way into the Oval Office? And I don’t mean Obama.
____________________________________________________________________
What? Leo didn’t identify anything. He accused a President of something, but that doesn’t mean squat. He provided no real proof. Just supposition and theory, unsubstantiated by any real Presidential historians. The only thing we can rely on in regards to Leo is a gross misinterpretation of laws and facts. Which explains why he is a better poker player than lawyer.
RE Black Lion:
1) [...] The bottom line is that she declined to answer, so the statement that Dr. Fukino issued is valid.
2) [...] No retraction has been issued nor has any state official come out and disputed what she said.
3) [...] So the only conclusion someone that is not biased can reach is that the statement is valid because Dr. Fukino is the only person authorized to comment and she did.
4 [...] amazing.”
BL, bellow is a famous classical demonstration which promotes your fine argument amongst the absurdist theater’s great lines:
“Cats have whisks -
“Socrates has whisks -
“Therefore Socrates is a cat – (The Bald Singer, Eugene Ionesco)
Amazing, yet true -
Regards
misanthropicus says:
February 4, 2010 at 9:14 am
RE Black Lion:
1) [...] The bottom line is that she declined to answer, so the statement that Dr. Fukino issued is valid.
2) [...] No retraction has been issued nor has any state official come out and disputed what she said.
3) [...] So the only conclusion someone that is not biased can reach is that the statement is valid because Dr. Fukino is the only person authorized to comment and she did.
4 [...] amazing.”
BL, bellow is a famous classical demonstration which promotes your fine argument amongst the absurdist theater’s great lines:
“Cats have whisks -
“Socrates has whisks -
“Therefore Socrates is a cat – (The Bald Singer, Eugene Ionesco)
Amazing, yet true -
Regards
____________________________________________________________________
Your leap in logic is astounding. Only the birthers could take a “no comment” from an official to mean something that it doesn’t. Now can you show me a statement from any official that disputes or disagrees with Dr. Fukino? You can’t. All you have is the most absurd leap in logic by the master of misconceptions and fantasy giving his opinion as fact. Just as an FYI, legally the Assistant AG’s comment would be considered a “no comment”. Which means she declined to answer his questions and refused to comment on the case. So we are still left with the official statement by Dr. Fukino on the state of HI letterhead which has not been retracted in any way. And in it Dr. Fukino states that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
jvn says:
February 4, 2010 at 9:02 am
Steve -
I can understand that you are frustrated because your arguments lead you into corners that you cannot get out of.
You seem to forget that the Constitution itself is “promulgated law,” unless you are arguing that “Natural Law” somewhere, somehow decreed that the United States would be established after a revolution, that the Constitution is preordained and that the Founders really didn’t write it so much as accept it on tablets from on high.
Following your “logic” the Founders also didn’t establish a republican form of government – because it didn’t exist on the day the Constitution was ratified, right?
You have claimed that from the ratification of the Constitution forward, only men were native born citizens (unless their father was not a citizen, then they were aliens and not US citizens despite being born in the US, right?). Your claim is that these native born men were also natural born citizens because their mothers – despite her prior citizenship – became citizens because their fathers were… Am I right so far?
So – in your view – the “separation” of native born from natural born only came about after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, at least that’s what I believe you’ve said.
But your view runs counter to history. Everyone born in the United States under the state laws from back when they were colonies were native born citizens, so how can your theory here be correct?
Since you apparently concede that the Founders equated native born and natural born because you refuse to show where they made a distinction, maybe you CAN show us where your view of what it meant to be native born came from?
The ‘paths’ to citizenship involves various ‘circumstances’, plural.
If one is a NBC then it is part of the combined ‘circumstances’ that they are also ‘native born’.
Your attempt to segregate the various ‘circumstances’ appears to be a process of expressing some form of bigotry against one or another of the ‘circumstances’.
The Constitution was clear that all Citizens were equal in ‘Rights and Privledges, Duties and Obligations’ save for one.
That the 14th removed the bar to citizenship of the various previously barred people and with that was extended to women, in their own right.
But even though the ‘door’ of the 14th became a new path for many it did not change the facts of how citizenship is obtained or the circumstances requisite to be a NBC. In other words, with that door opening the door to immigration and naturalization did not close. And just as with the Grand Father Clause of the original text of A2S1C5 has long since lost its usefulness of its purpose, so to has the 14th in very large measure.
When two citizen parents have a child on US soil that child is an NBC, when a citizen Parent has a child of some one other than a US citizen that child is a citizen, equal in all things save one, and it does not matter where in the world that child was born as long as some affirmative action is taken to preserve that citizenship right for the child.
So the ONLY instance where the 14th remains active is the conferring of citizenship on the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS and transient Foreign National travelers.
And so, Steve enters the realm of Beneniah, Bob Strauss, and Linda, where discussion ceases and postings are reduced to barely comprehensible rants that have virtually nothing to do with the subject matter that was being discussed.
Steve, you can make your “pronouncements” all you want, and you can rant all you want, but it doesn’t change the state of things today.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.” – Indiana Court of Appeals
Now, you can argue that this is only relevant in Indiana, but the 67 or so other rejections of these cases would indicate otherwise.
Until and unless you find some court to agree with you, it woould appear that every possible authority disagrees with your position.
In other words, you lost!
Sue says:
February 4, 2010 at 5:48 am
Debunking Orly’s ‘memo on Quo Warranto’ February 2, 2010
“Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Orly Taitz.
trackback
Orly has written a Memo in which she repeats many of her claims about Quo Warranto. I have taken some time to explain why she is wrong on most counts. Enjoy…”
more here: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/debunking-orlys-memo-on-quo-warranto/
____________________________________________________________________
To follow up on Sue’s post specific language from the article she links to…
Orly makes the following incorrect statement in her filing…”There is no limitation in Quo Warranto, as such it includes the office of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief.”
That’s incorrect. In fact, there is much reason to doubt that Quo Warrant can be initiated against a duly elected President since such is per Constitution limited to Congress. When Congress voted on exactly this issue, the measure was defeated, noting that such an action would be un-Constitutional .As Ferris explains:
The legislature may ratify the title to an office, in which case it cannot be questioned on quo warranto. People v. Flanagan, 66
Mr Thurman when Congress was debating the issue surrounding “Counting the Vote” after the Hayes controversy:
“I do not therefore agree with the Senator from Vermont that there can be any such contest. I do not think that the framers of the Constitution intended that the title of the persons declared in the joint assembly of the two houses to be President should remain in doubt for a single moment but that on the contrary from the time he was declared to be elected all men should respect his title for he was declared elected pursuant to the Constitution of the country. There might be error in deciding who was elected every body of men is liable to commit error courts are liable to commit error as well as congresses the decision may be in favor of the wrong man but the public safety and peace require that that decision when once made shall be final and irrevocable.”
…
“Mr. Frelinghuysen: It seems to me, Mr. President, that there is one idea which the Senator from Ohio has entirely omitted, which is conclusive upon this subject,; it certainly is to my mind. I think the twelfth article of the amendments to the Constitution settles who has jurisdiction over this question. It does not do so in express terms, but it does do so by necessary implication. It says that the President of the Senate is to open the certificates and the votes, which are then to be counted in the presence of the two houses. That by necessary implication to my mind gives the jurisdiction over this subject to the two houses; and if the Constitution does give it to them, we cannot by law give it to the judiciary of the country.”
The New York Times, on June 20, 1882, published an article explaining that an attempt by Congress to allow the title of the President to be tried by Quo Warranto had been defeated. Most relevant are the comments by Mr. Hewitt who “did not approve the bill, and he remarked that be was satisfied that no man installed in the office of President could be ousted before the expiration of his four years by any method except revolution”
“The part of Mr. Updegraff’s bill which aroused the strongest opposition was that which provided that the defeated candidate for the Presidency might appeal to the courts after the votes bad been counted and his opponent declared elected. The sections in question provided that the claimant might proceed bv quo warranto in the United States Circuit Court by filing complaint within 10 days after the declaration of his rival’s election. The defendant must answer and plead within 20 days, and the trial must begin within 30 days after the service of the summons. Provision was also made for appeal to the Supreme Court and for enforcement of judgment by a writ addressed to any Marshal.”
jvn says:
February 4, 2010 at 10:14 am
And so, Steve enters the realm of Beneniah, Bob Strauss, and Linda, where discussion ceases and postings are reduced to barely comprehensible rants that have virtually nothing to do with the subject matter that was being discussed.
Steve, you can make your “pronouncements” all you want, and you can rant all you want, but it doesn’t change the state of things today.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.” – Indiana Court of Appeals
Now, you can argue that this is only relevant in Indiana, but the 67 or so other rejections of these cases would indicate otherwise.
Until and unless you find some court to agree with you, it woould appear that every possible authority disagrees with your position.
In other words, you lost!
I have, as of yet, but begun to fight!
We are a Republic in foundation and the occasional excesses’ of the passions of democracy may cause destruction to some edifice or other but, as history has shown, not even wars can destroy its Foundation.
Rhetoric aside, you and your fellow travelers have a very strong case as to ‘How To’ destroy America, in my opinion, and are very passionate in your support, protection and defense of that case.
So we will leave it to the history not yet written to determine whether this cause was but a ‘civil disagreement’, a source of ‘civil discord’ or a ‘civil rights’ cause with differing goals or a ‘civil war’ leading to results as yet unknown.
brygenon, I would agree with you that there has been a “slam dunk” of Obama into office. The problem is that Obama, or any other candidate, cannot legally assume a position being illegal and not qualified from the start. There is no “magic wand” that can correct the illegal nature or condition of a candidate after the fact.
Every other court case that has been attempted to date has not been approached correctly, which is why they have all been thrown out.
When one who has been harmed by Obama’s usurpation [one of the other presidential candidates running against him] brings suit in the D.C. District Court under Chapter 35 of the D.C. Code, that interested person will have standing to bring such suit. Discovery will then take place, the facts will be gathered, and the law underpinning those facts will be adjudicated by that court.
Once the procedural hurdles have been cleared, then the merits of the case will be considered. Until that time, you can keep hoping that what Chapter 35 of the D.C. Code does not touch Obama.
Reality is that the proper litigant has not yet filed suit. Standby. Sooner or later someone will get it right. If no one gets it done properly in the court prior to 2012, you can be sure Obama will not qualify for a second run without a genuinely thorough vetting next time around. My vote is that he will not be a candidate for the office in 2012 because he’s not a qualified candidate. We won’t know this for sure until a case is finally adjudicated.
The way things are going, it would not surprise me if the Democrats turn on Obama themselves with respect to this eligibility matter, to remove him in order to preserve their own political hides, and thereby automatically assume the “high road” politically by doing-in their own sacrificial illegal candidate – probably engineered by Bill and Hillary for her benefit.
RE QW John:
[...] If no one gets it done properly in the court prior to 2012, you can be sure Obama will not qualify for a second run without a genuinely thorough vetting next time around. My vote is that he will not be a candidate for the office in 2012 because he’s not a qualified candidate. [...]
I wouldn’t bet my ranch on dba Obama preferring to take the safe road and not trying to run for a second term -
What is certain though, is that the 2012 circumstances will be solidly different of 2008 – gone will be the economic crisis anxieties, gone will be the paralyzing racial political correctness of his opponents (within Democrats or elsewhere), gone will be the inexpugnable hope & change candidate, gone will be the mindless enthusiasm for him, and the sense that Obama’s second run might damage the Dems will be pervasive amongst them -
In these surrounding I can see that the Birthers’ concerns will be finally answered and dba Obama’s mysterious past will be seriously scrutinized -
On the other hand, I am not the only one who have noticed in Obama when cornered the tendency of becoming defiant and confrontational – and this “character” trait may well push him to try his hand for a second presidential run – and as we know, hubris is uniformly punished by gods -
Yet, in either outcome of his choices, he is not out from the hook, since while the constitutional sin of his illegitimacy is likely to be forgiven for political correct reasons, Obama remains exposed to the major criminal charge -
I.e. , major financial fraud, for rising enormous amounts of money from gullible citizenry (am I the only one who uses “gullible” term today?) and foreigners as well (hehehe) while he (and some associates) were FULLY AWARE THAT HE WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE for the position in cause -
So, either way, it’s clear that the Birthers and constitutionalists have some pretty years ahead, while the Obamatons and liberals face a miserable end of career -
Regards –
against some
BL, bellow is a famous classical demonstration which promotes your fine argument amongst the absurdist theater’s great lines:
“Cats have whisks -
“Socrates has whisks -
“Therefore Socrates is a cat – (The Bald Singer, Eugene Ionesco)
Amazing, yet true -
What is really amazing that line isn’t even in the The Bald Singer (or, as is more commonly known, The Bald Soprano) — it is a very loose paraphrasing from Rhinoceros.
Misa -
I’ll tell you what the situation in 2012 WILL be though…
The GOP candidate will likely be another one considered a “RINO” by the right wing.
The GOP nominee will either be a very flawed candidate like Poison Palin or a lightweight/unknown like Pawlenty.
The President will seem, well, presidential by comparison.
And, the Democratic base and the Independent voters will be energized by the chance to make history again as Hillary Clinton joins the ticket in place of retiring VP Biden.
It might be a somewhat closer election than 2008, but the President (at least from where we sit today) should easily win.
Re jvn:
[...] And, the Democratic base and the Independent voters will be energized by the chance to make history again as Hillary Clinton joins the ticket in place of retiring VP Biden. [...]
Intriguing idea – “Game Changer” is generally considered an assault on Hillary coming from Obama’s quarters, assault designed to cripple her credibility as manager, politician, etc –
Do you think that that job is Obama’s way to lure her as a companion in the White House? Interesting -
Regards -
Re bob:
[...] What is really amazing that line isn’t even in the The Bald Singer (or, as is more commonly known, The Bald Soprano) — it is a very loose paraphrasing from Rhinoceros. [...]
Dear, dear – you sure are a diligent Google user.
Regards -
PS: since we are talking about “loose quotations” in a constitutional matters framework, let me introduce myself: I am mister Lawrence Tribe – you can call me Larry – and I always considered Barack Obama a brilliant law student -
You can quote me on that -
Dear, dear – you sure are a diligent Google user.
Actually, it’s called “having an education” (beyond the “School of Hard Knocks”).
And brygenon is right: No one ever does say, “Thanks for debunking me.”
Misa -
An Obama/Clinton ticket in 2012 brings back the “making history” excitement.
It draws independent voters and women voters to the ticket.
And it sets Hillary up for a run for President in 2016.
“You made history in 2008, you can make it again in 2012, and yet AGAIN in 2016!”
The only excitement the GOP might have in 2012 might be Palin, but her negatives would appear to be too strong with independents and moderates, but you never can tell.
When people don’t really know the difference between the two parties, they will go with newness and excitement every time.
Another possible conclusion that would not be biased:
Dr. Fukino overstepped the bounds of her office and credentials by stating that a person was a natural born citizen, a legal term of art that has not been precisely defined but has been viewed differently by different legal and constitution scholars throughout United States history.
Ms. Nagamine realizes that it is beyond her position to define natural born citizen, because that definition only applies to one position in all the land, the Presidency, and only the Supreme Court (and possibly the DC District Court) can address that definition if it needs to be addressed. “No comment” is a wise official move for Ms. Nagamine.
Do Ms. Nagamine’s answers to Mr. Charlton’s questions mean that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and Constitutionally not qualified to be President? No.
It does mean that the question must be posed to the Supreme Court in a form that the Justices will accept if a binding formal definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to the Constitutional requirements necessary for a person to legally serve as President is to be obtained.
Still, there is something strange about Dr. Fukino’s statement and the Hawaii AG’s office.
If no qualified legal authority reviewed and approved the DOH statement that Mr. Obama is a NBC before it was read, Dr. Fukino could be accused of offering legal opinion without a law license. Also, the Hawaii DOH has absolutely no official authority to determine if a person is constitutionally qualified to be President when no clear formal binding definition of “natural born citizenship” currently exists. Would she be willing to risk overstepping the bounds of her office and to practice law without a license?
Was there a lawyer in the DOH or an independent counsel advising the DOH from outside the department? Did the AG’s office offer its legal advice? If the DOH took the advice or read a script prepared by the AG’s office, the AG’s office should be willing to recognize that it had prepared the statement for the DOH. If the DOH ignored the advice or modified the statement or sought other legal counsel, the AG’s office could refuse to acknowledge Dr. Fukino’s statement as valid and could refuse to issue a statement of its own. No other legal counsel has been named as involved.
Statement issued with no accountability. This would be a Catch-22, would it not?
Phil:
A blood relative of Mr. Obama had requested a copy of his birth records and was told that he could have them after one year. Perhaps that year is up.
Orly was representing the blood relative. It might be interesting to check in with Orly.
KJ
kj says:
February 4, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Phil:
A blood relative of Mr. Obama had requested a copy of his birth records and was told that he could have them after one year. Perhaps that year is up.
Orly was representing the blood relative. It might be interesting to check in with Orly.
KJ
____________________________________________________________________
It’s not that easy….the individualhas to prove their relationship and it has to be a close relative, not some distant cousin…
Re bob:
[...] Actually, it’s called “having an education” [...]
In omnis res scibilis… via Wikipedia? My -
Not surprising that you use a passionate Obamaton like Bry as competence-bolstering wittness -
Regards -
kj says:
February 4, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Black Lion says:
February 4, 2010 at 8:55 am
Another possible conclusion that would not be biased:
Dr. Fukino overstepped the bounds of her office and credentials by stating that a person was a natural born citizen, a legal term of art that has not been precisely defined but has been viewed differently by different legal and constitution scholars throughout United States history.
Ms. Nagamine realizes that it is beyond her position to define natural born citizen, because that definition only applies to one position in all the land, the Presidency, and only the Supreme Court (and possibly the DC District Court) can address that definition if it needs to be addressed. “No comment” is a wise official move for Ms. Nagamine.
Do Ms. Nagamine’s answers to Mr. Charlton’s questions mean that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and Constitutionally not qualified to be President? No.
It does mean that the question must be posed to the Supreme Court in a form that the Justices will accept if a binding formal definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to the Constitutional requirements necessary for a person to legally serve as President is to be obtained.
Still, there is something strange about Dr. Fukino’s statement and the Hawaii AG’s office.
If no qualified legal authority reviewed and approved the DOH statement that Mr. Obama is a NBC before it was read, Dr. Fukino could be accused of offering legal opinion without a law license. Also, the Hawaii DOH has absolutely no official authority to determine if a person is constitutionally qualified to be President when no clear formal binding definition of “natural born citizenship” currently exists. Would she be willing to risk overstepping the bounds of her office and to practice law without a license?
Was there a lawyer in the DOH or an independent counsel advising the DOH from outside the department? Did the AG’s office offer its legal advice? If the DOH took the advice or read a script prepared by the AG’s office, the AG’s office should be willing to recognize that it had prepared the statement for the DOH. If the DOH ignored the advice or modified the statement or sought other legal counsel, the AG’s office could refuse to acknowledge Dr. Fukino’s statement as valid and could refuse to issue a statement of its own. No other legal counsel has been named as involved.
Statement issued with no accountability. This would be a Catch-22, would it not?
___________________________________________________________________
Possible.
If you recall this is what Dr. Fukino said to Leo back in the summer…
“No formal attorney general opinion was generated relating to the July 27, 2009 public statement made by Chiyome L. Fukino, M.D. Any other legal advice rendered to our clients is privileged communication. We have nothing to release based on your request.”
Which means that the deputy attorney general of Hawaii has no more right to look at Obama’s vital records than you or I, so she wouldn’t be in a position to corroborate Fukino’s statement even if she wanted to. So that is why there was a no comment.
QW John says:
The problem is that a crank fringe would rather live in a fantasy world than accept that Barack Obama is really President of the United States.
There’s nothing Obama can do to dispel the conspiracy theoriy. He effectively fought the smears before the election, and now he’s simply not entertaining further tantrums.
In this case, Keyes v. Bowen, the Court explained the correct approach:
“Federal law establishes the procedure for election of the President and Vice President and establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”
Same thing, over and over. You do great in your imaginary cases, while real judges on real courts tell it vastly differently.
“The process for removal of a sitting president – removal for any reason – is within the province of Congress, not the courts.” — Barnett v. Obama
I included a longer version of that quote, along with others from eligibility cases, in a previous comment in this thread.
jvn says:
The Courts noticed that too:
“the court has already entered one order which found the original complaint incomprehensible and frivolous” — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Craig v. United States
http://ia311032.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.okwd.72722/gov.uscourts.okwd.72722.13.0.pdf
“it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig’s arguments on appeal” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Craig v. United States
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf
Maybe Dr. Fukino consulted an attorney before she made her statement…
Or maybe she simply remembered the definition of NBC that she was taught in Junior High School, to wit:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” – Indiana Appeals Court
brygenon says:
February 4, 2010 at 5:39 pm
jvn says:
And so, Steve enters the realm of Beneniah, Bob Strauss, and Linda, where discussion ceases and postings are reduced to barely comprehensible rants that have virtually nothing to do with the subject matter that was being discussed.
The Courts noticed that too:
“the court has already entered one order which found the original complaint incomprehensible and frivolous” — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Craig v. United States
http://ia311032.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.okwd.72722/gov.uscourts.okwd.72722.13.0.pdf
“it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig’s arguments on appeal” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Craig v. United States
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf
Go ahead and use your simple minded interpretations of the results of my case and ignore the distinctions of the ‘legal perspectives of frivolous and incomprehensible as they relate to standing and jurisdiction elements being lacking as opposed to the subject of the case.
You are like the little kids over at PJ slapping each others backs while giggling like kids in a play ground.
You stick to your guns and continue shooting your blanks in the air without effect on anything but your own ego’s.
Your lame duck/rubber chicken protected one may decide to quit soon anyway.
But just so you know, that will not keep me from re-filing anyway, I still want the Constitutional definition of NBC disseminated for the benefit of posterity.
brygenon,
One cannot “REALLY be president” without LEGALLY being president. Just like one cannot be a mayor, commissioner, sheriff, governor, representative, or senator, without legally being such, according to the requirements necessary for each to be qualified to run for election.
The problem you seem to have is that “a crank fringe” realizes that the law is supreme [or, is supposed to be] in our nation, not fantasies, tantrums, etc. You would rather have politics being allowed to trump the law. In such case whoever would have the larger mob would then dictate what the “law” is for themselves and their idols.
Obama effectively fought “the smears before the election” by hiding all the doucments that would have dispelled the so-called “conspiracy theory,” and continued on with the same conduct after the election, even to this day. Whether it is a “conspiracy theory” or not would be settled completely by the quo warranto action. Obama could also produce all of his documentation to dispel the “conspiracy theory:” passports, scholarship loan documents, long form birth certificate, etc. Why doesn’t he do such? Something to hide? Of course that’s the case. Common sense dictates such.
Procedures for elections are established. The procedure for removing a usurper after an election is also established in the quo warranto action. That action brought by the proper relator with standing in the D.C. District Court will not be imaginary in any sense at all, but real to the core.
Congress gave the D.C. District Court the jurisdiction and authority to determine whether or not a candidate was legally valid or not in any election that pertains to those positions falling within the bounds of Chapter 35 of the D.C. Code Congress enacted. Congress saw it within their province to empower the D.C. District Court to entertain quo warranto actions. If you still fail to understand the sum and substance of what quo warranto is about, please re-read what I have already posted in the past.
No office holder anywhere in our country can be legally holding his/her office if he/she was not legally eligible to be a candidate for that office. The number of votes cast, certifications by boards, and swearing-ins of any election winner cannot, and will never, change the mandatory, strict compliance election laws. That power of change is solely within the province of the legislature, the same as the authority given by Congress to the D.C. District Court to determine whether or not a sitting president was a valid candidate for the office or not, after the fact.
jvn says:
February 4, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Maybe Dr. Fukino consulted an attorney before she made her statement…
Or maybe she simply remembered the definition of NBC that she was taught in Junior High School, to wit:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” – Indiana Appeals Court
Fukino is still in Jr.High………? ummm
But you still can not explain how the construction serves ANY National Security concern John Jay had, or why the Framers troubled A2S1C5 with the Grandfather Clause or how to reconcile that for the first 100 years or so a wife and child losing American citizenship when marrying a Foreign Citizen and any number of reasons that you myopic view of the construction you support, protect and defend on behalf of the ’0′ is too simple minded even to keep Benedict Arnold from ROFLOL……….
kj says:
February 4, 2010 at 4:00 pm
(Snipped)
Ms. Nagamine realizes that it is beyond her position to define natural born citizen, because that definition only applies to one position in all the land, the Presidency, and only the Supreme Court (and possibly the DC District Court) can address that definition if it needs to be addressed. “No comment” is a wise official move for Ms. Nagamine.
Excuse me, but I am just curious how you come by the ‘feeling’ that NBC is an irrelevant term save for its usage expressing the qualifications of a POTUS.
How that squares with the aspirations of the Constitution?
A “usurper” is one who seizes and holds (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or WITHOUT LEGAL RIGHT: The pretender tried to usurp the presidency.
Obama is a usurper. He holds the office of president without legal right because he was not a legally qualified candidate to run for the office.
That is the theory to be proved in the proper forum authorized to determine legal eligibility questions. That forum is the one empowered by Congress to do such – the D.C. District Court.
Why would a sitting president be so secretive and protective over documentation that would positively prove his eligibility status as a candidate for the office he now holds, IF it did? Of course, he would produce it promptly, if not sooner.
There is somehthing to hide. What Obama is hiding is the proof sought by those proffering the theory of his ineligibility. What has been so effectively hidden to date, will be produced prior to the primary in 2012. Liability to pay back four years of a president’s salary by a usurper is something Obama will try to avoid by not running again for the office.
Super nice news! Obama eventually speaks!
Is dba Obama preparing the nation for a grand confession, or he just advances on the road of a constitutional fight, road so diligently identified, prepared and marked by Obamatons? I.e. moving further in legal obfuscation on the direction “natural born/ native citizen”, and trying avoiding the essential fact of WHERE HE WAS BORN?
At the National Prayer Breakfast today, Obama himself checked the waters regarding his (il)legitimacy issue… and he HEDGED EXACTLY LIKE Fukino:
“You can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, MY CITIZENSHIP.” (my caps).
No, Barry, no – there isn’t a single human in the United States having doubts about your being an US CITIZEN – yes, Barry, you are an USA citizen -
The problem is… WHERE YOU WERE BORN, Barry, WHERE YOU WERE BORN?
That’s what the nation wants to know, and you, like in this very situation, want to avoid discussing -
Was the great deliberator’s choice of “questioning my citizenship” term instead of “legitimacy” just a negligence?
Or was it a calculated opening move towards legal constitutional fight?
I think it was a calculated move – and it looks like Obama and his crew decided to try to outmanoever the citizenry by taking the road of opening this confrontation on the contorted terms laid out ad nauseam by his faithful Obamatons here, in RSOL and elsewhere -
… and by Herlihy’s paper in the Kent U law review…
Obama’s choice of “citizenship” term in his speech was almost a confession that he… hehehe… wasn’t born in the USA.
Obama’s video at the Nat’l Prayer Breakfast announcing this move at
the super-Argus that Obama File is:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
Loved it -
, and move early to control the issue
the issue on the
Rolf Winesteing,
Unfortunately, the White House Press Corp has allegedly been told that this type of questioning is “off-limits.”
-Phil
Dennis,
Excellent questions all, but I would approach this issue from a different perspective.
There is currently no federal law nor constitutional verbiage that speaks to any given aspect of the legislative process being the “sole” or “exclusive” point of eligibility enforcement.
Of course, I could be wrong, but in investigating the eligibility issue for over a year — to include a Joint Session of Congress and the Electoral College — nobody has proven this otherwise.
That said, I’m not sure if an elector necessarily has subpoena power, but they would likely have standing in Court. Then again, such a situation has likely never occurred before in the republic.
The bottom line to all of this is that a candidate can be vetted at any time throughout the legislative process of election. It also doesn’t have to stop there, either (as has been shown). Quo warranto exists for a purpose such as questioning the legitimacy of such an officeholder.
-Phil
brygenon,
That’s a “good enough” admission of a possibility of willingness to accept a theoretical truth as I’ll get from you. Excellent. The rest of the commentary by you was simply your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled (as if I had to say that again).
Yes, yes, yes… I know. You cannot come straight out and say anything that would give any sort of appearance that you might — just maybe — could potentially — maybe even categorically — agree with folks such as myself, because, well, that just wouldn’t look good for your reputation, now, would it?
Nah, I didn’t think so.
Anyway, thanks for the veiled admission.
-Phil
Black Lion,
So are you saying that Bush v. Gore is a mythical case that never happened?
Looks like even SCOTUS got involved in the Legislative branch on that one..
-Phil
Black Lion,
You know, you really should watch it. These veiled threats of agreements with me aren’t going to do you any favors on other forums out here in the blogosphere.
-Phil
kj,
Except for one problem: Dr. Taitz thinks I’m an “O-bot” and advertised such on her site some months ago.
-Phil
My point was that only the president and vice-president are required by the Constitution to be natural born citizens. Senators, Congressmen, all other government positions described in the Constitution (and not described in the Constitution) can be any class of citizenship: natural born, native born, or naturalized. That doesn’t mean that natural born citizenship is irrelevant. The Founders and Framers would have preferred that the majority of citizens were natural born and today they are. All citizens enjoy equal rights no matter how their citizenship was acquired and access to all government positions except for the (Vice) Presidency. The Constitution would allow all Senators, all Congressmen, all ranking military officers in the Pentagon, all of the Cabinet officers, and all of the Supreme Court Justices to be citizens not natural born. Such a situation would not be wise if for no other reason than succession. Just like it is unwise for the Commander in Chief to have any past allegiance to any foreign power, it would also be unwise to have many if any ranking military officers or a majority of officers in the armed services not natural born citizens, so that the military would be less likely to come under foreign control.
Since natural born citizenship is a unique requirement for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, the definition of the same can only be tested by a successful examination by an impartial court of law of the citizenship of a President or Vice-President who may not be a natural born citizen.
kj says:
February 4, 2010 at 4:07 pm
“A blood relative of Mr. Obama had requested a copy of his birth records and was told that he could have them after one year.”
Hawaii wouldn’t have said that. The Hawaiian statutes specify that only persons with a direct and tangible interest may be given certified copies of vital records. They define who that is here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
It’s pretty much limited to close family. Another myth.
Orly is so paranoid. Is there anyone here that can ask Dr. Taitz the status of the blood relative’s request for Mr. Obama’s birth records? Maybe someone who can contact Charles Lincoln III?
Tancy,
It doesn’t hurt to ask. Maybe something has been released by Hawaii. It could be one of Orly’s exaggerations, though.
KJ
There is currently no federal law nor constitutional verbiage that speaks to any given aspect of the legislative process being the “sole” or “exclusive” point of eligibility enforcement.
It’s called the nondelegation doctrine. Ask Apuzzo to explain it.
kj says:
February 4, 2010 at 8:58 pm
slcraig says:
February 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm
kj says:
February 4, 2010 at 4:00 pm
(Snipped)
Ms. Nagamine realizes that it is beyond her position to define natural born citizen, because that definition only applies to one position in all the land, the Presidency, and only the Supreme Court (and possibly the DC District Court) can address that definition if it needs to be addressed. “No comment” is a wise official move for Ms. Nagamine.
Excuse me, but I am just curious how you come by the ‘feeling’ that NBC is an irrelevant term save for its usage expressing the qualifications of a POTUS.
How that squares with the aspirations of the Constitution?
My point was that only the president and vice-president are required by the Constitution to be natural born citizens. Senators, Congressmen, all other government positions described in the Constitution (and not described in the Constitution) can be any class of citizenship: natural born, native born, or naturalized. That doesn’t mean that natural born citizenship is irrelevant. The Founders and Framers would have preferred that the majority of citizens were natural born and today they are. All citizens enjoy equal rights no matter how their citizenship was acquired and access to all government positions except for the (Vice) Presidency. The Constitution would allow all Senators, all Congressmen, all ranking military officers in the Pentagon, all of the Cabinet officers, and all of the Supreme Court Justices to be citizens not natural born. Such a situation would not be wise if for no other reason than succession. Just like it is unwise for the Commander in Chief to have any past allegiance to any foreign power, it would also be unwise to have many if any ranking military officers or a majority of officers in the armed services not natural born citizens, so that the military would be less likely to come under foreign control.
Since natural born citizenship is a unique requirement for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, the definition of the same can only be tested by a successful examination by an impartial court of law of the citizenship of a President or Vice-President who may not be a natural born citizen.
Thank you for your thoughtful and understanding response.
Your view of the situation appears to be correct as far as it goes, however the work I have been doing is to get the EXISTENCE of NBC’s and the RIGHT to be recognized as such insofar as citizenship is concerned.
In a Nation as tolerant as this where every notion as circumstance of hyphenation is a cause celibe, Black/Afro/African/Mexican/Hispanic/Latin/Asian/Indian/Gay/Lesbian/Pro-Choice/Anti-Abortion/Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Scientologist/Buddist/Liberal/Progressive/Marxist/Conservative and on and on………..
I am an American-Natural Born Citizen and I intend to have the Courts and the Government recognize me as such, an Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 eligible ‘natural born citizen, insofar as citizenship is concerned.
kj, I will try to email Orly and see if we get a reply.
Bob says:
February 4, 2010 at 9:41 pm
There is currently no federal law nor constitutional verbiage that speaks to any given aspect of the legislative process being the “sole” or “exclusive” point of eligibility enforcement.
It’s called the nondelegation doctrine. Ask Apuzzo to explain it.
It is an interesting ‘situational’ theory, however, it remains my contention that the Congress, within in it’s powers, delegated the authority to the USDC DC Court as it would be improper for the House and/or Senate to sit as the trier of Facts in a Civil Dispute.
Now, what would the Congress do with a judgement of ineligibility from the results of a Quo Warranto Action against a sitting POTUS?
They could write on the back of a napkin “Articles of Impeachment”, staple it to the Judgement and send it over to the Senate. The Senate could have Chief Justice Roberts drop by, have him read the Judgement, call for a Vote of Impeachment and with a a Majority Vote, knock off and head to the Congressional restaurant.
But since they would be on the Tax Payers dime they would most likely stretch it out over several weeks or months.
Phil says:
Phil, it’s what I’ve stated over and over: You guys do great in your *imaginary* cases. In your fantasies, you win. I thought I had been so clear on that, yet now you take it as some major admission.
QW John says:
I love it when they demo what I just described.
Except I’m the one quoting real judges and real courts.
“Counsel makes these allegations although a ‘short-form’ birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” — U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Rhodes v. MacDonald
See QW John, that’s what I was talking about: “You do great in your imaginary cases, while real judges on real courts tell it vastly differently.”
Not imaginary? So can you cite one real case where the Court issued the writ against any elected federal officer?
brygenon, You keep comparing the case decisions of “apples” with non-existent “oranges.” There has not yet been any action on any quo warranto case in the D.C. District Court. The only one I am aware of is the one just filed by Orly Taitz – “A+” for effort and tenacity for her.
Before I filed my own quo warranto State case, it too was “imaginary,” in the sense that it did not yet exist until filed. I had the advantage of previously decided State cases to reference. Everything was theoritical to begin with, and all the “blanks” of facts and law had to be arranged and precisely fit before the case developed enough in legally logical substance to be filed.
I had no concern [other than tactical] which court I would file in because State common pleas, appeals, and supreme court each have original jurisdiction over that writ. Not so with one filed against the president. The only place where that can be filed is in the D.C. District Court. Congress only gave that particular court the jurisdiction to hear those cases, and this will be the first of its kind considered by it.
Quo warranto cases are a pretty small percentage of the overall types of cases filed yearly compared to others. There are not that many attorneys familiar with all that is involved in executing that cause of action. So, I would expect some mistakes to be made by attorneys along the way, particularly if they move too fast before filling in all the procedural blanks.
You are going to be deeply “hurt” when one of these “imaginary” cases is finally filed in the proper forum, with a relator having standing, without any procedural defects, so that discovery can begin to ferret out facts that will tell the whole truth about Obama – which is something that shouldn’t have to be done, all of it should have already been voluntarily disclosed by Obama. Once we get to that point, then we will be well on our way to reaching the merits of the case. The court will then decide if Obama is a “natural born citizen” under its own definition of what those three words mean, contemporaneous with the time of writing, juxtaposed the facts uncovered in discovery.
My only hope is that the Democrats don’t completely abandon Obama and “throw him under the bus” before we reach that stage in the process. Obama has become a gigantic political liability for even the most die-hard liberal Democrats in both the House and Senate. Even those pitiful pieces of human existence realize the damage Obama is doing to their life-long despicable political careers. Obama is the disposable throw-away “suicide bomb” that the Democrats will blow at the “right time” to save their own collective hide.
Watch this happen in slow motion. The gears are starting to turn ever so slowly right now.
Phil says:
February 4, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Black Lion,
But to indulge your fantasy, say the SCOTUS (because if any fedeal judge did agree that a QW was able to be brought agains the President, then that case would eventually have to be brought to the SCOTUS) ruled that a QW statute would be enforcable against the President, and such a statute found the President to be ineligible, then the case would have to be remanded to Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. However I would suspect that the President would resign by then and Biden would then become President as per the 25th amendment…
You know, you really should watch it. These veiled threats of agreements with me aren’t going to do you any favors on other forums out here in the blogosphere.
-Phil
___________________________________________________________________
Phil, I have always respected you. And more that that I have always been about the law. And if the courts did somehow find the President ineligible, then I would support the law. In that respect we have always agreed. I just don’t think that any court will make that finding…
Phil says:
February 4, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Black Lion,
So are you saying that Bush v. Gore is a mythical case that never happened?
Looks like even SCOTUS got involved in the Legislative branch on that one..
-Phil
____________________________________________________________________
phil, if I a correct their ruling more involved the recount in Florida rather than the any issue of Presidential eligibility….At least that is how I saw it…
Black Lion says:
February 5, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Phil says:
February 4, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Black Lion,
So are you saying that Bush v. Gore is a mythical case that never happened?
Looks like even SCOTUS got involved in the Legislative branch on that one..
-Phil
____________________________________________________________________
phil, if I a correct their ruling more involved the recount in Florida rather than the any issue of Presidential eligibility….At least that is how I saw it…
______________
True. At issue in Bush v. Gore was Florida’s election law, specifically the method for recounting ballots. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered a statewide manual recount.
So, no, Phil, Bush v. Gore did not involve a review of the legislative branch and certainly did not involve any review of Presidential eligibility. It involved the interpretation of STATE law and decided that a recount could not be accomplished in compliance with FLORIDA law in time for the certification deadline.
QW John says:
No, I keep comparing real cases, which eligibility deniers keep losing, with imaginary cases, which you guys keep winning in your heads.
While you so laud Dr-and-Esquire Taitz’s effort, I’m on record, in answer to a challenge from this site’s host, predicting all such cases fail. Will you bet this case to win, as I bet it to lose? I should warn you that I have a perfect record predicting eligibility cases, and that sustaining perfection on this subject was not difficult.
Hey — you filed a quo warranto case? That’s interesting even if not about the federal writ at issue here. Did you succeed in removing the usurper from office? Please be specific, with citations.
“A pretty small percentage of the overall types of cases” is still respectable, just so it’s not flat zero. On the federal quo warranto statute at issue, I think it is flat zero. Show me one elected federal officer removed by quo warranto, or even challenged by the D.C. Court issuing the writ of quo warranto, and I’ll have to eat my words.
Your state quo warranto action — I don’t know. Please tell us. Can you cite the removal of usurper, or did you fail?
Yeah, I get that kind of thing all the time. Poor me, so utterly refuted by the suit in your imagination.
I study lots of kinds of kooks, and the form you present — the argument from imagination — is best exemplified by the perpetual-motion cranks. Obama-eligibility-deniers have a record of 100% failure a year or two long, while perpetual-motion guys have done just as badly for over 800 years. They’re still asking what I’ll say when I see their over-unity generator crank out free energy.
Your only hope? That’s so sad, pitiful — you said you filed an actual quo warranto case. Did you remove the usurper, or is your story another tail of folly and failure. Please tell, with citations so we can check.
GeorgetownJD,
The original question had to do with with whether or not SCOTUS is legally capable of being involved with the Legislative branch, regardless of the topic. What I was showing was that, yes, they are capable of making decisions that have to do with the constitutionality of law, which would have been the only reason why they would have even considered cases such as Bush v. Gore.
At least this has always been my understanding of the High Court, and why they don’t even consider the vast majority of cases petitioned to them, even if the petitioners believe that there is a constitutional issue at hand.
-Phil
The original question had to do with with whether or not SCOTUS is legally capable of being involved with the Legislative branch, regardless of the topic.
And how was any legislative branch involved with the Florida recount?
Bob,
Even better question: what constitutional issue was the High Court clarifying with respect to the 2000 general election?
-Phil
What constitutional issue was the High Court clarifying with respect to the 2000 general election?
Bush v. Gore ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“The original question had to do with with whether or not SCOTUS is legally capable of being involved with the Legislative branch, regardless of the topic.”
I am pretty sure this answers your question.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
Article I
Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and “shall have the “sole power” of impeachment.”
Section 3.
“The Senate shall have the “sole power” to try all impeachments.” When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.”
“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office,” and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
The way I understand the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the “sole” power to impeach the President and the Senate has the “sole” power to try all impeachments. However, from the language of the Constitution, it appears that Congress only has the power to “remove the President from office”. The judicial branch then has the power of indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
BTW, I don’t believe anybody here actually buys into “two types of natural born citizens” or 14th amendment citizens are different/inferior to citizens prior to 14th amendment. If you really do, then this pretty much says it all regarding this issue.
http://organizethesouth.blogspot.com/2009/06/nathan-deals-attack-on-14th-amendment.html
Nathan Deal’s Attack on the 14th Amendment
Why am I the only person who seems to recall the phrase in the 10th Amendment about ‘… if the president elect is found to be unqualified …’? That implies that Congress is NOT the sole qualifier of a presidential candidate, because their ‘qualification’ process results in a president elect. Yet a president elect can be found to be unqualified at a later date. Who, exactly, makes this finding? You can’t say Congress, because they can’t impeach him until after he is inaugurated. And no one has cited a ‘statute of limitations’ beyond which he can be found ‘unqualified’. So apparently there is justification for some other government body to make a finding of ‘unqualified’ that is, hmmmmmm, not the executive branch (25th Amend speaks to ‘disabled’ and death), not Congress (25th Amend speaks to ‘disabled’ and death), hmmmm ….
brygenon, The “real cases”- “apples” – you keep comparing are not quo warranto cases – “oranges.” Any case filed by any attorney better have been “won in his head,” in that attorney’s mind, or else why file it at all? No one knows what a court will do until the case makes it to court.
Cases are filed all the time and rejected by courts for procedural reasons like standing, etc. Of course you would have a “perfect record predicting” all the non-quo warranto cases that have been brought to date. As many have pointed out already, a president can only be removed by impeachment and/or disability by Congress. But impeachment and/or disabiity are not quo warranto, which is another way a usurper can be removed from office by the D.C. District Court that has been granted the jurisdiction to do such.
I do not expect to see Orly Taitz’s case in quo warranto to be successful, particularly on the standing issue. The best relators to satisfy standing would be all the other qualified candidates that ran for president in 2008. It is their constitutional rights that have been violated in the process by an imposter who held himeslf out as a valid candidate. The votes Obama received do not count if, in fact, Obama is the usurper that common sense dictates. If Obama is found to have been unqualified, then the only way to make those candidates whole is to have a special election between the remaining candidates whose rights were violated by Obama.
My quo warranto case is still pending. It was filed February 27, 2009. It takes a lot of time for the wheels to turn in the courts. Right now we are awaiting a decision on an appeal from the common pleas court to unseal the usurper’s criminal court record wherein he was tried for intentionally falsifying his election affidavit, where he swore he was qualified to be an eligible candidate, but wasn’t. The jury found him not guilty of “intentionally” falsifying his election paperwork, and he had that court record sealed, I contend in violation of my and the public’s constitutional right to access that record.
The standard for sealing a criminal case under the State statute is if the privacy rights of the defendant [in this case a public official] outweigh the public’s right and need to know whether their public officials are legitimate or not. We had oral arguments on January 11th, and we are still waiting for the court to hand down its decision on what they order. Once we get that issue settled, then we will proceed on to the oral arguments in the quo warrano case.
Even though the law may be completely on my side of the case, it is easy to see that politics plays a very big part in how things play out in a court room, boards of election, etc. How could a person not eligible to be a valid candidate, get on the ballot, get voted in, then indicted for falsifying his election documents, get acquited, seal his record, and continue on in the position through two more elections, still unqualified to be a candidate?
It’s obvious that many did not do their jobs along the way, prosecutors and boards of election, not to mention the intentional fraud involved, seeing as how the criminal trial judge stated on the record that he was not the office holder, which is why he and his attorneys probably got the case sealed. The majority of the public only hears what they are told, or not told, and does not have time themselves to investigate what really happened. A dumbed-down electorate is scammed by crooked people in positions of authority that should have done something about the usurpation, but didn’t, allegedly because of the politics, bribery, and blackmail involved. I’ll let you know how my case ends up when it is final.
Zero is not a small percentage! There has never been a quo warranto case against a president, and I am not aware of any other against a federal office holder. That’s what I’ve been telling you all along. You have been comparing cases that have not been quo warranto cases in the D.C. District Court, bragging how good you are at predicting eligibility cases that have been brought in the wrong forum with the wrong litigants.
Maybe Judge Royce Lamberth will explain his dismissal of Orly Taitz’s case in a way that might shed light on whether or not a quo warranto against the president can be entertained by his court or not. That would be helpful. Then you could brag again, or weep gigantic tears for Obama.
QW John says:
Both Kerchner v. Obama in and Barnett v. Obama included quo warranto claims. They lost.
Which is why the eligibility deniers do not have competent attorneys.
Not just all the “non-quo warranto”, all of them: every dispositive ruling on the eligibility cases, even the cases we were unaware of at the time. With 64 cases and another dozen appeals or petitions for appeals or stays, if one result were as likely as the other each time, that would be one chance in 75,557,863,725,914,323,419,136.
Right. Thus we see quo warranto does not apply to the President.
So in a year and counting you got nothing, your opponent won his trial, and you decline to provide the requested citations. Imagine my surprise.
Right. The Constitution specifies how the officers named in the Constitution may be removed, and quo warranto ain’t it.
The right litigant for a writ of quo warranto is the U.S. Government. Orly Taitz and and Leo Donofrio tried to get quo warranto actions in the D.C. initiated months ago. Of course they were fooling themselves, as we obots explained at the time. Since the cases never even started they are not counted in our perfect record, but we did get that right too.
The issue isn’t the D.C. Court versus another District Court, or state versus federal, or liberal judge versus conservative judge. It is fantasy versus reality. Eligibility deniers are not just failing to predict what a court will say; they’re ignoring what real judges and real courts actually did say.
“The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.” — Kerchner v. Obama
“The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.” — Barnett v. Obama
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” — Ankeny v. Daniels
“Counsel [Orly Taitz] makes these allegations although a ‘short-form’ birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” — Rhodes v. MacDonald
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to show that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do.” — Hollister v. Soetoro
“Plaintiff’s first attempt to involve a federal district court in this ongoing conspiracy theory [...]” — Cook v Simtech
“Congratulations, Mr. President.” — Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts upon Swearing in Barack Hussein Obama as the 44′th President of the United states, 20 Jan 2009. “Congratulations again, Mr. President.” — similar situation, the next day.
brygenon,
Both Kerchner and Barnett, wrong forum. Once again, quo warranto + D.C. District Court + Valid Standing = good case = best case with competent attorney(s).
Quo warranto does apply to a usurper in the office of president. There is a big difference between a legally valid president, and a usurper who is not a legally valid president. Impeachment and disability pertain to removing “legally elected” presidents. Quo warranto applies to a usurper who would not be a “legal president” because he/she was not LEGAL up front as a valid candidate.
D.C. Code: Section 16-3501. Persons against whom [quo warranto] issued; civil action:
“A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.”
The office of President is “a public office of the United States” within the District of Columbia. There is a quo warranto action available against any person who within the District of Columbia “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a public office of the United States.”
The reason why Congress vested the D.C. Court with this power and authority to entertain civil quo warranto actions is to protect all candidates constitutional due process rights in elections. That is what courts are supposed to do, it’s their task in life to uphold the constitution and laws. Candidates who run for office illegally, either intentionally through fraud or ignorance [to stupid to realize they are not qualified], who are not legally qualifed to be on the ballot can never legally hold said office, if elected. Obama was supposedly a constitutional law professor, so, if he turns out to be an invalid candidate, did he knowingly commit fraud?
There would be no viable way for Dr. Alan Keyes, a qualified candidate who satisfied all the requirements and played by all the rules, to seek redress if it were not for the quo warranto avenue through the D.C. District Court. Obama, not being legally eligible to be a candidate for the office of president, illegally won the election when his votes were counted. If it had been known that Obama was not a valid candidate prior to the election, his name would never have been placed on the ballot. Since he was not a legally valid candidate his votes don’t count, and since there were more than two candidates running for the same position, the only way to quarantee the constitutional validity of the election and the constitutional rights of all the legally qualified candidates running for the same office, there would have to be a special election WITHOUT Obama on the ballot. The Democrats would not have a candidate on that ballot, as it is partly their fault for not making sure that their candidate was valid in the first place.
All cases in quo warranto are named the same [Government entity, federal or state] ex rel. [name of relator(s)]. It is a civil case brought in the name of the government. That’s why the AG or U.S. Attorney in D.C. brings the case, or a “person of interest” with standing, like Alan Keyes whose constitutional rights were infringed and denied by Obama in the election because Obama was an illegal candidate.
My case is authentic. Yes, it has been almost a year since I filed it, and over $20K thus far. Standing to bring the suit was satisfied a long time ago. Nevertheless, if I am successful in securing the writ, my opponent owes me, by statute, all the salary I would have made since January 5, 2009, plus all my compensatory damages to date expended to secure my rightful position. If the law is upheld, I’m sure it will make the news sooner or later. Until then, you can wait, just like me, for the decision of the courts.
It’s like “The Who” sang last night during the Super Bowl halftime show, “Meet the new boss, same as the old,” and “we were all fooled again.”
QW John says:
In Kerchner and Barnett, the Courts explained the right forum:
“The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.” — Kerchner v. Obama
“The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.” — Barnett v. Obama
That’s not what the real courts told Alan Keyes. He was a plaintiff in Barnett v. Obama (see quote of the Court above), and the lead plaintiff in Keyes v. Bowen.
“Federal law establishes the procedure for election of the President and Vice President and establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.” — Superior Court of California, Keyes v. Bowen
Can’t tell — no citation, despite repeated requests.
brygenon,
We’ll just have to wait and see what happens when the proper litigants are in the correct forum. I would not bet the farm on the content of those two decisions, like you do. Judges, like attorneys, make mistakes all the time from the bench, which is one reason why appeals come into play.
No illegal candidate can disenfranchise legally qualified candidates through fraud and/or ignorance without the disenfranchised candidates having some avenue for redress of the wrong – quo warranto. An illegal office holder does not have the legal authority or power to do anything that is binding, without further litigation to determine the status of what a usurper has done in the position, after the fact.
State case law trickles down from federal decisions on constitutional issues all the time. Review some state quo warranto cases to see how they process and why they are filed. Where the D.C. District Court has the jurisdiction to apply quo warranto to a usurping public office holder in D.C., that court has the authority and power to determine whether or not Obama was a legitimate candidate. That’s the law as enacted by Congress – read it again.
Where the D.C. District Court has the jurisdiction to apply quo warranto to a usurping public office holder in D.C., that court has the authority and power to determine whether or not Obama was a legitimate candidate. That’s the law as enacted by Congress – read it again.
And where is the cite for your alleged quo warranto action?
For the third time: Nondelegation doctrine. Even Apuzzo gets it.
Bob,
Better re-read Apuzzo’s analysis. An “interested person” can petition for a quo warranto writ under the D.C. Code. The only interested persons who have been affected by the illegal candidate, Obama, are the other candidates who were defrauded out of their constitutional rights by his illegal action.
Non-delegatable doctrine is not involved in the determination of a candidate’s legitimacy under a quo warranto action. There is a difference between what constitutes “improper” and “illegal.”
You’ll have to wait, the same as I, to see how a properly framed case fares in the D.C. District Court. Until then keep watching until it is finally settled – by the Court(s).
Better re-read Apuzzo’s analysis.
Since you are having problems undestanding it, here’s the relevant portion:
“But there is a more serious problem with what Mr. Donofrio proposes and that is one of constitutional dimensions. Mr. Donofrio claims that Congress has delegated its powers to remove a sitting President to the DC District Court by passing the DC District Code statute. First, I maintain that Congress in passing the DC statute did provide private litigants with a statutory mechanism for bringing quo warranto actions in the DC District Court, but it did not intend for it to apply to ousting sitting Presidents. Under the Appointments Clause (Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2), it is the President that is given the power to make, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointments of “Officers of the United States” and other positions that are not considered inferior. Given the President’s power to fill these offices, it is doubtful that Congress meant to include the Office of the President itself when it wrote “public office of the United States” in Section 16-3501. Hence, as written and only interpreting it as though the Office of the President is not included in its sweep, the DC statute would pass constitutional muster. Second, if the DC statute were to be read as Mr. Donofrio does so as to be used as a tool to oust from office a sitting putative President, then I doubt such an application of that statute would be constitutional. It is highly doubtful that Congress, a co-equal branch of government to the Executive, has the constitutional power to pass a statute which would allow a federal district court to alone directly remove a sitting President. See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137 (1803) (shows that Congress in enacting laws must do so within the confines of power given to it in the Constitution and held that Congress had no power to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases not described in the Constitution). Surely, if Congress cannot give the Supreme Court power which the Constitution does not give to that Court, Congress also cannot give to a federal district court any power not belonging to it under the Constitution.”
Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress cannot delegate to the district court the determination of a candidate’s legitimacy.
And I conclude from your repeated refusal to give any citation to your own alleged case that none exists.
Bob,
Here’s the problem that underlies what you are using to claim Apuzzo’s analysis supports your stand. “Given the President’s power to fill these offices, it is doubtful that Congress meant to include the Office of the President itself when it wrote ‘public office of the United States’ in Section 16-3501″ Assuming the president is “legal,” it would then be doubtful as Apuzzo states, I’d agree. But that’s not what the underlying facts of this case dictate. Obama was not legal ab initio, did not remove the illegal nature of his defect prior to the election, therefore, he does not have the legal power to act as president.
If a “president” is not legally holding office, because he/she was not legally eligible to be a candidate, he/she is not “The President,” legally speaking. Congress does not have the apolitical means or procedure to determine the legitimacy of Obama’s candidacy. Only a court can perform that operation.
That’s the issue. Is Obama legally holding the office, or, is he a usurper without the power and authority? If Obama was not legally eligible to be a candidate for the office, he can’t be legally appointed or elected to it.
The D.C. statute is totally constitutional in principle and effect. A quo warranto, by definition, would only show that Obama is not legally holding the office. If he was not legal to begin with, “waving a magic wand” over his “anointing” in the form of certifications and swearing-ins cannot correct an illegal pre-existing condition that was not removed prior to the election. If he was “illegal” to begin with, he is not made “legal” just because he was able, for one reason or another, to escape detection before the defect to his candidacy was exposed.
You can’t get or make a prince out of a frog. You can’t put the cart before the horse. Just because he’s there, that does not automatically make him LEGALLY there, if he got there illegally. You can’t make a valid, legal president out of a criminal or a constitutional law professor that is too stupid to realize he’s not eligible to be a candidate for the office. The court would not be removing a president, it would be removing a USURPER. A usurper does not hold the office legally or rightfully. By definition a usurper cannot be a president or any other elected official.
Obama was not legal ab initio, did not remove the illegal nature of his defect prior to the election, therefore, he does not have the legal power to act as president.
Thomas Moodie was not “legal ab initio,” yet he was removed from office through a quo warranto action. You see, quo warranto actions are, by definition, used to remove someone who was not “legal ab initio.” You (and Donofrio) are creating a distinction that does not exist.
If you had actually filed a quo warranto action, you might know that.
Bob,
You said, “Thomas Moodie was not ‘legal ab initio,’ yet he was removed from office through a quo warranto action. You see, quo warranto actions are, by definition, used to remove someone who was not ‘legal ab initio.’ You (and Donofrio) are creating a distinction that does not exist.”
You are agreeing with me. That’s exactly what I have been saying for quite some time now in my posts. Thomas Moodie was found, after the fact, to not have been a resident for the minimum time required to be a valid candidate for governor. He was a usurper removed through a quo warranto action. He did not have the legal underpinnings necessary to support a legal claim or right to the position of governor.
Obama will be found, after the fact, to have not been a “natural born citizen” through a quo warranto action in D.C. District Court. He will be exposed as a usurper with no legal claim or right to the position of president.
You said, “If you had actually filed a quo warranto action, you might know that.”
My quo warranto action, under State election laws, is exactly the same in principle as the one against Thomas Moodie and one brought against Obama. The purpose of the action is to substantiate legal eligibility as a candidate, or the lack thereof.
Now you are starting to understand what it is all about, or at least that is what your last post indicates. If a candidate is NOT legal up front, and is elected by a majority of votes, he is still a usurper with no power, authority, or claim to the seat he assumes illegally.
My quo warranto action, under State election laws, is exactly the same in principle as the one against Thomas Moodie and one brought against Obama. The purpose of the action is to substantiate legal eligibility as a candidate, or the lack thereof.
Which gets us back to the nondelegation doctrine. The U.S. Constitution has given Congress the exclusive role in removing a sitting president. By doing so, the courts do not have any authority to hear a quo warranto action with respect to the president.
If your (fictional) quo warranto action was filed in, say, Ohio, the Ohio Constitution specifically authorizes the courts to hear quo warranto actions, without limitation. (Same as the North Dakota Constitution in effect during Moodie’s time.)
In contrast, not only does the U.S. Constitution lack such authorization, the exact remedy (removal) is specifically delegated to Congress.
Hence the distinction without a difference you (and Donofrio) are trying to create.
QW John wrote:
John, snipping what the real courts said does not make it go away, even if it helps you personally cling to what you want to believe. Note the vast difference between what you say and what actual courts actually did say in eligibility cases that raised quo warranto:
“on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.” — U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Barnett v. Obama
“The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.” U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey — Kerchner v. Obama
RealAmerica,
You are by no means the only individual who thinks this way. I, for one, completely agree with everything you’ve stated.
It is the opposition who likes to confuse the matter by suggesting that there is some law somewhere that states that a Joint Session of Congress is the “only” means by which a presidential candidate’s eligibility can be tested.
Obviously, this is not true, for the following reasons:
1. Nowhere in the Constitution or in federal statute is it explicitly stated that a Joint Session of Congress is the “sole” or “only” means by which a presidential candidate’s eligibility can be tested;
2. Even if point 1 were actually true, then there’d really be no need for a campaign or even the Electoral College. After all, if the Joint Session were the only place to test eligibility, then there’d be no point to “qualify” (in a practical sense: “Are they up for the job?”) a candidate during these times;
3. There is no constitutional verbiage nor federal statute that stipulates (as you’ve wisely concluded) any statute of limitations on presidential eligibility. Such eligibility can be checked at any time;
4. While the Congress does possess — by constitutional mandate — the sole power of impeachment, that is not the same thing as investigating for eligibility. Impeachment is a process that occurs subsequent to a finding (doesn’t matter where, really) of incapacity to hold office. Remember, being ineligible is not illegal; no crimes are broken if one is found to be ineligible for the presidency. Of course, if fraud were involved as a part of a potential cover-up, then that infraction would have to be dealt with separately.
-Phil
Bob & Bry,
I agree that a legally “sitting president” can be removed by Congress the way the Constitution dictates. An illegally “sitting president” is a usurper, one who does not have a legal right or claim to the position, yet is holding himself/herself out as such. I contend that Obama is not a valid “sitting president” at this time, that is, he is instead a usurper in the seat, so there is no actual “sitting president” there to be removed by Congress, legally speaking. There is no way for Congress to remove a usurper, as Congress would never politically be able to identify such much less remove one from the seat, particularly when the usurper is of the same party majority controlling the Senate.
Congress is not the one that is directly harmed by a usurper. Those “interested parties” harmed by a usurping president are the other candiates who were defrauded out of their constitutonal rights in the election. They are the ones who have standing to remove a usurper. But first a usurper has to be legally identified. That operation is accomplished by the courts. There is only one court in the country that has original jurisdiction over elected public offices in D.C. involving quo warranto – which is the remedy to identify and remove a usurper [in this case, not a legally "sitting president" by usurper definition] – the D.C. District Court.
As far as the decisions in Barnett and Kerchner, those decisions come from judges that have never handled a federal quo warranto case, because they do not have jurisdiction to do so. I would consider what they have said, but would not bet the farm on their analysis being correct. You can. I wouldn’t. I’ll stick with my legal analysis, let the court decide, and see where I am right or wrong thereby. I would trust what Judge Royce Lamberth decides on any and all cases brought before the D.C. Court in quo warranto.
I contend that Obama is not a valid “sitting president”
Then take your complaint to Congress, as the U.S. Constitution grants it the sole power of removal.
Congress would never politically be able to identify such much less remove one from the seat, particularly when the usurper is of the same party majority controlling the Senate.
If you don’t like the rules for impeachment, you amend the Constitution. You don’t get to invent unconstitutional workarounds.
I would trust what Judge Royce Lamberth decides on any and all cases brought before the D.C. Court in quo warranto.
Judge Lamberth who killed all the “presentments”? Taitz isn’t an interested party; her case will be dismissed soon enough.
I’ll stick with my legal analysis, let the court decide, and see where I am right or wrong thereby.
Fair enough: You can wait for the courts, and Obama will continue to be president in the meantime. Hope you enjoy the wait.
Phil says:
As you should have noticed by now, Phil, the opposition likes to cite what actual courts have said to eligibility deniers on just that issue:
“Federal law establishes the procedure for election of the President and Vice President and establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.” — Superior Court of California, Keyes v. Bowen
Also see the quotes from Barnett v. Obama and Kerchner v. Obama. I figure you must be tired of those by now, but you’re still pretending this is just something your opposition likes to suggest to confuse the issue, when in fact it is what real judges on real courts have told you.
Bob,
Please re-read what I wrote in my last post. I can’t explain it any clearer than that for you.
Congress can do abolutely nothing in this matter. Nothing. The rules for impeachment and removal for disability work just fine on real, lawful presidents, the same as quo warranto is there for individuals who have been directly harmed by a usurper.
I like the way the constitution and laws exist. There is no need to amend anything or “invent” anything to uphold those candidates’ constitutional rights. The constitution and laws are a perfect fit for all situations that arise, even under the facts associated with Obama’s fraudulent conduct.
I agree that Orly Taitz most likely does not have standing as an “interested person.” I am not sure, however, if she will be granted standing if both the AG and U.S. Attorney are found to have been derelict in their duty.
Yes, you are correct. Obama will continue as the de facto president until removed for usurping the position. Believe me, I can wait for the wheels of justice to turn, even though they do so at a snail’s pace most of the time. It’s never “enjoyable” to watch justice being denied, for any reason. We’ll see what happens in time.
QW John wrote:
In the federal courts, redressability is one of the three requirements for standing, and thus a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction. If a federal Court lacks power of redress, it lacks jurisdiction to try the case. Congress’s authority, Congress’s call.
Can you cite *any* sitting judge who has tried a federal quo warranto case?
Please re-read what I wrote in my last post. I can’t explain it any clearer than that for you.
What you have yet to explain is how the nondelegation doctrine doesn’t apply when the U.S. Constitution has expressly given Congress the power to remove the president.
Congress can do abolutely nothing in this matter.
Impeachment (or removal in case of disability); it is in the Constitution.
The rules for impeachment and removal for disability work just fine on real, lawful presidents
Which Obama is, given the Electoral College’s vote, the certification, and the swearing. That “John thinks so” doesn’t change a thing.
There is no need to amend anything or “invent” anything to uphold those candidates’ constitutional rights.
Yet that exactly what you are trying to do with an unconstitutional application of D.C.’s quo warranto law.
I am not sure, however, if she will be granted standing if both the AG and U.S. Attorney are found to have been derelict in their duty.
The AG and US Attorney for DC haven’t been derelict in their duty; even if they somehow have, she still isn’t an interested person.
We’ll see what happens in time.
Rest assured, he’ll be gone by January 20, 2017.
Bob,
“he’ll be gone by January 20, 2017.”
That’s pretty funny, Bob! You really got a laugh out of me with that one.
Do you genuinely think, after all the exposure of this eligibility matter in the media, and courts, that Obama could pass eligibiliy scrutiny to be a valid candidate in 2012???
To me, this explains why you can’t comprehend what I have explained completely, over and over to you in my previous posts, why, what you espouse, does not apply to the usurper Obama.
He’s toast, that hasn’t yet popped out of the toaster.
Do you genuinely think, after all the exposure of this eligibility matter in the media, and courts, that Obama could pass eligibiliy scrutiny to be a valid candidate in 2012???
Yes; and given the birther track record, I’d bet double.
To me, this explains why you can’t comprehend what I have explained completely, over and over to you in my previous posts, why, what you espouse, does not apply to the usurper Obama.
No, you haven’t. In case I’m being unclear:
NO YOU HAVE NOT.
The nondelegation doctrine makes it clear that applying D.C. quo warranto statute to the president would violate the U.S. Constitution. You have failed to even attempt to explain otherwise.
brygenon,
You misquote me by adding “[Congress]” as if that is what I was saying. It is the “other candidates” that ran against Obama in the 2008 election that have the standing, not Congress.
I could only find one case peripherally involving a state quo warranto, in Shannon v. Jacobowitz, January 7, 2005, where the Second Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have sent back a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 case that should have been brought in quo warranto. I am not aware of any other quo warranto cases that have been decided by any federal court. Are you?
This is a case of first impression, for sure. I can’t wait for the proper relators to get their case into that D.C. District Court so we can all see “what the law is” going to be on this whole matter. It will be exciting to read the final reasoning behind all the issues touched upon by everyone in these posts.
In Shannon v. Jacobowitz, 394 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005), a candidate for town supervisor alleged civil rights violations due to voter machine malfunctions. (Although the voting machines reported the candidate received more votes, this count was incorrect, and the incumbent was declared the winner.)
The circuit court reversed the district court’s rulings because there was no evidence of intentional disruption of voting rights. But more basically, the circuit court did not want someone making literally a federal case over a voting machine malfunction absent an actual bad act.
The stray reference to quo warranto was that, under state law, the proper method to challenge voting machine irregularities was to file a quo warranto action. In state court.
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the D.C. Code’s quo warranto law.
For an actual case involving the D.C. Code, John ought to read Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), which explains in no uncertain terms why Taitz’s case will be dismissed.
Bob,
The nondelegation doctrine, under the facts surrounding Obama’s ineligibility, does not apply.
1.) Obama ineligible to be a valid candidate, not “natural born citizen.”
2.) Violates constitutional due process rights of fellow candidates in same election.
3.) Wins the election.
4.) Assumes the legal condition of what is called in law a “usurper.” Is not legally in the Article I position of president other than de facto by being physically there in person, illegally. Therefore, non-delegation doctrine does not apply.
5.) Does not have a legal claim or right to the office – that is, not a real “sitting president,” but a usurper, imposter, faker fakir.
6.) Cannot be removed by Congress. Constitutionally it has no way to determine or prove if Obama is usurper or not, because of its politically charged nature, only a court can determine that.
7.) Cannot be impeached or removed under the constitution by Congress for a disability that cannot be determined by it.
8.) No other viable legal remedy available for those candidates directly affected by Obama’s fraud other than a quo warranto action.
9.) No other forum available to bring quo warranto outside D.C. District Court, which court was granted jurisdiction to hear such cases by Congress.
10.) D.C. District Court the only forum for three listed entities to bring quo warranto, where the authentic “interested persons” – the other candidates who ran against Obama – are the ones that have standing to bring the action.
There. Now I have! Again, for the last time. Good luck to you.
6.) Cannot be removed by Congress. Constitutionally it has no way to determine or prove if Obama is usurper or not, because of its politically charged nature, only a court can determine that.
“Politically charged nature” is irrelevant to the Constitution’s verbiage; if don’t like what the Constitution says, amend it, don’t violate it.
7.) Cannot be impeached or removed under the constitution by Congress for a disability that cannot be determined by it.
Actual courts have said otherwise, and you provide no legal citation to support your position. But if some random person on the Internet says so….
QW John says:
Ah, I misread. Sorry.
I see you were actually arguing that Congress could not remove an illegitimate President. Nonsense.
That had nothing to do with federal quo warranto.
At the federal level quo warranto has been procedurally abolished. I don’t think any sitting judge has ever issued the federal writ. It was *never* applicable to offices named in the Constitution.
Again, note the vast difference between what you say and what real judges on real courts say.
I don’t think any sitting judge has ever issued the federal writ.
In the Newman case, Newman tried to dismiss the petition, but the trial court denied that request. There was actually a trial, the jury found against Newman, and the judge ordered Newman’s ouster.
Of course, SCOTUS ruled the trial court erred in not dismissing the case, so the trial itself became a nonevent.
The case arises from the president appointing Newman as D.C. City Commissioner (and not a constitutional office).
Bob says:
By “any sitting judge”, I mean a current judge. Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell is from 1915.
QW John made a point that the judges who dismissed quo warranto actions in Barnett v. Obama and Kerchner v. Obama had never handled a federal quo warranto case. Has any sitting judge issued the writ? It’s still in the D.C. code, but procedurally obsolete. (And of course it was never applicable to Constitutional offices.)
Another of Alan Keyes’ cases is under appeal. It was first known as “Keyes v. Obama“, then “Barnett v. Obama“, the yesterday the appeal became “Drake v. Obama“, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit consolidated two appeals of Barnett. Let’s see how well Gary Kreep and Orly Taitz work together. Again.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26773593/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-10-Filed-clerk-order-Deputy-Clerk-MT-The-court-sua-sponte-consolidates-appeal-nos-Consolidation-and-Schedulin (Thanks to Realist at Politijab for the document.)