Help us fight the
ObamaMedia

click title for home page
  
Be a subscribing
member

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media
Register Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 20      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
SocalJay

Registered:
Posts: 229
Reply with quote  #51 
Claudia,

Though I agree with you on the merit of argument, I'm not so sure it would be that easy to erase his presidency.  I believe that the SCOTUS has been dodging the eligibility issue because of the uproar it would cause.  Imagine Watts-like riots all across the country.  They don't want to be responsible for the deaths that will occur should that come to pass.  I can see no other reason why they haven't taken up this issue since before he was elected.  No, there is more going on here than what appears on the surface.  Unfortunately for us, we might not know until it's too late.

I have to admit though, I dream about the day the memory of him and his administration gets erased.

Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #52 

here is an article that Edwin Vieira wrote in 2008, and it is as applicable today and it explains why Obama must be either thrown out or step down and what will happen when that takes place:

 

(while I do agree that there will be riots and chaos should he be Impeached or shown the door any way possible done by the Supreme Court by prving he is INELIGIBLE, there will be riots and chaos ANYWAY, no matter what happens, because he is going to instill Martial Law very soon, no matter what happens, because he MUST either STOP THE ELECTIONS or make sure that the VOTES won't be counted correctly by Ballot Tampering, Election Fraud or coersion at the polls) thus he will soon turn into a Dictator and all hell will break loose then.....)

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.

To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?

These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

 

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve

Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #53 

what it comes down too,, is that though he can't be Impeached, he can be tried in a DC COURT under a Quo Warranto filing after or possibly before the House of Representatives finds him guilty of Usurping but he can't be Impeached.  However, he would be found GUILTY on a number of charges such as Treason, ect. and he will have to serve time or maybe be put to death, depending on how many crimes and acts he is found guilty of for those crimes, all put together.  He can be Impeached AFTER the fact of his removal by the Quo Warranto or Supreme Court coming down with a removal order because he was NEVER ELIGIBLE TO BE in the position.

 

Impeachment is NOT THE ANSWER in this case.....  and he has made sure that the problem is sooo mucked up that not many people understand the gravity of it and the ramifications of what he has perpatrated.

 

BTW,  -- Vieira is a well respected and knowledgable CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR and he knows of what he states and writes.  Go back and re-read the things in this article and then go to Newswithviews.com and read all of his other articles.  I know it is long, but the truth is a very complicated thing at this point.  And I know that much of this article has already come to pass, with regards to the cases filed by Berg and others, and the Electoral College having taken the vote, but many things and outcomes are still pertinet and obvious.   

 

Also, Leo and Orly have each tried to get Obama into the DC District Court via Quo Warranto, but that was a while ago and not so many people were aware of the gravity of the case at the time and the need for it to be handled by that venue in the DC District Court. It is worth trying to get it handled that way AGAIN, IF POSSIBLE, and it may be possible with all the cases being filed against his being eligible to be put on the ballots in many states NOW...

Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #54 

definition:

quo war·ran·to

[kwoh waw-ran-toh, wo-] Show IPA
noun Law .
1.
(formerly, in England) a writ calling upon a person to show by what authority he or she claims an office, franchise, or liberty.
2.
(in England and the U.S.) a trial, hearing, or other legal proceeding initiated to determine by what authority one has an office, franchise, or liberty.
3.
the pleading initiating such a proceeding.

Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English < Medieval Latin quō warrantō by what warrant
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.
Cite This SourceLink To quo warranto

Quo warrantois always a great word to know.
So is pardon. Does it mean:
to put an end to or suppress a nuisance; to annul a writ
a release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor; the document by which such remission is declared
 

Collins
World English Dictionary
quo warranto (ˈkwəʊ wɒˈræntəʊ)
n
law a proceeding initiated to determine or (formerly) a writ demanding by what authority a person claims an office, franchise, or privilege
[from Medieval Latin: by what warrant]

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source
Etymonline
Word Origin & History

quo warranto
from M.L., lit. "by what warrant."
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
 

 
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #55 

Longknife,

 

while I agree in theory, in order for a sitting President to be declared a Usurper and Ineligibe to hold the Office, we are under a timeline of the end of the YEAR for any declarations to be made of Null & Void and Usurper to be held and charged.....  If Congress would come together  and find that he should be held over for Contempt and go to trial in the DC District Court (yes, it is under a WRONG/Leftist Judge at this time) but the court could not throw it out if Congress pressed for the hearing and suit, and then if that Judge found a conclusion that doesn't go along with the Law, then it would move up to a higher Court.... by Appeal and athen to the Supreme Court and then we might get something done.  But we are under a timeline and quickly running out of that available time to prove him Ineligible and OVERTURN all of the Laws, edicts, Treaties, etc that he has enacted.....  so someone must get it in front a Court fast. If we wait until after the election, he will become a Dictator in FULL CONTROL of the COUNTRY and will never be removed except by force and War.

SigP226

Registered:
Posts: 133
Reply with quote  #56 
Clarence Thomas has admitted they are evading the eligibility issue - 

Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #57 

 

this explains Quo Warranto a bit better than I can and how we can aget it started:

37. What is "Quo Warranto"?

Quo Warranto (Latin for "by what warrant?") is a judicial hearing for the purpose of determining whether an elected or appointed public official has legal authority to hold the office he or she is currently holding (Charlton). Information regarding the Federal Quo Warranto Statute can be found at these sites:

In a quo warranto action, the burden of proof lies with the public official whose eligibility is being challenged. The office holder is asked to substantiate her or his authority to hold public office. If the office holder cannot or will not do so, he or she is removed from office.

Various states and the District of Columbia have enacted their own quo warranto laws. These non-Federal laws should not be confused with the Federal quo warranto statute.

Congress enacted the Federal quo warranto statute in 1902 and revised it in 1963 to is present form. This statute consists of three sections, labeled 16-3501, 16-3502 and 16-3503 respectively. All three sections are reprinted in Appendix 4.

Section 16-3501 states:

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.

This section, as written, suggests:

  • Ineligibility is a public wrong but not a crime. A Federal quo warranto is a civil action, not a criminal prosecution.

  • A Federal quo warranto may be issued against any elected or appointed official who holds a Federal office located within the District of Columbia.

  • The DC District Court is the only court in which a Federal quo warranto proceeding may take place.

In theory, a quo warranto can remove a sitting president who is found to be ineligible. Attorney Mario Apuzzo has questioned this theory (Quo Warranto and the Kerchner v. Obama). Attorney Leo Donofrio insists the theory is sound (Misconceptions about Quo Warranto).

Direct Challenge: A "direct" quo warranto challenge, if successful, would remove an ineligible elected or appointed Federal official from office.

A "direct" challenge cannot be instituted unless there is an evidentiary fact which directly impugns a person's eligibility to hold the Federal office he or she is currently holding. At the time of this writing, there is only one verified fact that directly challenges Obama's eligibility: his British citizenship at birth. A variety of other facts -- such as his refusal to release his original long-form birth certificate and his grandmother's testimony regarding his birth in Kenya -- give rise to suspicion and doubt, but are not sufficient to support a legal challenge to Obama's eligibility.

When given a substantive evidentiary fact that directly challenges a Federal office holder's eligibility, any of the following may institute a "direct" Federal quo warranto proceeding in the DC District Court.

  • The Department of Justice (either the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia)

  • A "third person" (anyone who receives permission from both the Department of Justice and the DC District Court)

  • An "interested person" (someone who has an "interest" in the office allegedly being usurped and has permission from the DC District Court).

Since the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia are Obama appointees, the Justice Department is not likely to institute a "direct" quo warranto action against the President, and is not likely to grant permission to a "third person" wishing to pursue such an action. However, an "interested person" may petition the DC District Court directly, without the Justice Department's permission.

Past and present presidential and vice presidential candidates might qualify as "interested persons". Plausibly, any one of them could bypass the Justice Department, go directly to the DC District Court, and ask for permission to initiate a quo warranto regarding Obama's presidential eligibility.

In Newman v. United States (1915), the Supreme Court expanded the meaning of "interested person". The Court said:

The rule is the same regardless whether the office is elective or appointive. For in neither case is there any intent to permit the public office to be the subject matter of private litigation at the instance of one who has no interest therein which differs from that of every other member of the public. The claim that this construction makes the statute nugatory cannot be sustained, for the statute, as already pointed out, gives a person who has been unlawfully ousted before his term expired a right, on proof of interest, to the issuance of the writ, and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard. (Newman v. United States, 1915, boldface emphasis added)

The phrase "cases under the civil service law" might mean that someone like Inspector general Gerald Walpin, who was fired from his civil service job by Obama, could qualify as an "interested person".

Indirect Challenge: The DC Court of Appeals, in Andrade v. Lauer (1984), said that, if you were harmed by an official action taken by an ineligible Federal office holder, you may file an "indirect" (or "collateral") challenge against the official action, on the basis of the office holder's ineligibility.

In the Andrade case, the plaintiffs were Government employees who lost their jobs to "reduction in force" ordinances which cut whole departments from the Government budget. The plaintiffs sued alleging those who did the cutting were not Constitutionally qualified to make such decisions in that their appointments violated the appointments clause of the US Constitution.

The DC District Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing other than to bring a "direct attack" in quo warranto to remove the alleged usurper. But the DC Court of Appeals reversed and said that plaintiffs, who had suffered real injuries, could bring such an action on a case by case basis if they could prove their injuries in fact (being fired) was caused by a Government official who was not eligible to serve. (Leo Donofrio, Misconceptions about Quo Warranto, 2009)

An "indirect" challenge, if successful, would not remove an usurper from office, but it would undo the usurper's action which had caused harm or injury. For example, persons or companies which are being harmed by Obama's moratorium on off-shore drilling could ask the Court to overturn the moratorium, on the basis that Obama, as an ineligible President, had no legal authority to issue such a moratorium.

In Bond v. United States (2011), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a private citizen has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a Federal law if the private citizen is subject to fine and/or incarceration as a result of such law. For example, if you are found guilty of violating a Federal statute that President Obama had signed into law, you might have standing to ask a Federal court to overturn the statute and invalidate your conviction, on the basis that the statute was signed by a Constitutionally ineligible President:

Applying the Bond decision to a case challenging Obama's eligibility, one would have to be criminally charged or be compelled to pay money under a statute passed by Congress when Obama was President. ... Then one would argue that the law is not valid because it never was presented to a legitimate President for consideration under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, arguing that Obama is not a legitimate President because he does not meet the requirements of the "natural born Citizen" clause. Hence, one would argue that separation of powers and checks and balances have been violated. Obama's eligibility to be President under the "natural born Citizen" clause would be the basis for the attack against the charging statute. Since the office of the President is a constitutional office, the de facto officer doctrine (that we should treat Obama as the President by fact even though he is not by law) should not be an obstacle to this argument. (Bond v. United States and Standing to Challenge Putative President Obama on His Eligibility to be President)

In an "indirect" challenge, a plaintiff would not seek to have President Obama removed from office. The plaintiff would merely ask a court to invalidate a law or executive action which (a) was signed by President Obama and (b) is causing some kind of harm or injury to the plaintiff. An "indirect" challenge, by itself, would not end Obama's Presidency, but nevertheless could bring about a judicial hearing into Obama's "natural born citizen" status.

38. What can we do?

(1) Learn the "core" facts regarding President Obama's eligibility. A 4-page summary of these facts is available in HTML format and in PDF format.

(2) Avoid -- and encourage others to avoid -- mischaracterizing the birther controversy as being solely about Obama's birthplace and birth certificate. In general, birthers do not claim that Obama was foreign-born. They merely point out that there is uncertainty regarding the President's place of birth. Of greater importance is the fact that, regardless of his place of birth, Obama acquired foreign citizenship, at birth, by descent from his father. This fact, which has been verified by Obama's own public admission, directly challenges the President's natural born citizenship and Constitutional eligibility.

(3) Inform your elected representatives, both Federal and State, of the facts which give rise to doubts concerning the President's eligibility to hold office. Advise your elected representatives that, whenever there are facts indicating a violation of the Constitution, their oath to uphold the Constitution requires a timely investigation and resolution of those fact.

(4) Ask your U.S. senators and U.S. representatives to enact Federal legislation requiring future presidential and vice presidential candidates to establish their eligibility prior to running for office. An example of such legislation is H.R.1503, the purpose of which is:

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution. (H.R.1503)

(5) Ask your State representatives to support State legislation barring from the State ballot any presidential or vice presidential candidate who fails to conclusively establish his or her eligibility to hold office. Examples of such State legislation include Nebraska Legislative Bill 654 and Arizona HB 2544.

(6) If you know persons, businesses or states which have suffered "concrete and particularized injury" (loss of job, franchise, income or investment) as a direct result of an official action by President Obama, or if you know any persons who face fine or incarceration for violating a law that President Obama had signed, let them know they may have standing to challenge the official action or law, on the basis of the President's ineligibility. See Benefiting from Obama's Ineligibility.

(7) If you have access to presidential and vice presidential candidates, let them know they may have standing, as "interested persons", to petition the DC District Court for permission to begin a quo warranto challenge to President Obama's eligibility. The petitioner does not need to believe that the President is ineligible; he or she only needs to believe that "clearing the air" of uncertainty surrounding the President's eligibility is in the nation's best interest. After filing a petition, the petitioner's direct personal involvement in the matter would end; the lawyers would take over from there.

(8) Stay informed. From time to time, these sites (listed in alphabetical order) provide news, commentary and information regarding the Obama eligibility controversy, and the various eligibility lawsuits currently in progress:

 

 

 

and there were several cases listed, but I got this from a google searach of fact.......  I will go back and get the webpage addy so that any who want too look it up can, it is a very detailed page with all the perrtinent information about everything related to Obama and several other candidates and Natural Born Citizen and how to get it heard...........  the page is: 

 

Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #58 

Longknife,

I read or heard about the timeline just in the last few weeks, and am not sure where it came from, but itis very real......

 

however, I wanted to post these items so that all readers here will know what America is faced with concerning Obama and getting him out of office, IF there is a chance that someone knows how to get hold of an applicant or ex-holder of an Office that might have been or will be hurt in some way by Obama winning the next election or the last one (as in Gerald Walpin, of CA,) they might be able to get hold of such a person and convince s/he to come forward and file a suit for the good of the Country, becaues that is one way to get something started, beside the ballot challenges....  and the information is available, if a person wants to try to use it.....

 

Information is the best defense we have against this Usurper and we must start coallescing around and finding ways to help people gain access to this stuff, and possibly go on the war path to get him out of office, ourselves, since, as you say, it is obvious that no one else will do it with or without threats of OPEN WAR against "them".....

ozlander

Registered:
Posts: 15
Reply with quote  #59 
Obama's March 30, 2007 fundraiser quote.... "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

0&Co had years of planning and foreseeing all outcomes of how to use our Constitution against US.
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #60 

true, but if we don't exhaust EVERY possible method of getting him out of office, then we ALL let it happen and we have nothing to complain about when he totally becomes that DICTATOR that he so wants to be....

Agondontor

Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #61 
Federal Election fraud. Obama was not lawfully elected. The office was usurped. All signatures fraudulent. Barack Hussein Obama was a fictional pseudonym...an alias. The person simply does not exist. America did not elect Barry Soetoro as President...his name never appeared on the ballot.
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #62 

but the rub is getting hold of the documents that prove he is Barry Soetoro, Soebarka, Harrison J. Bounell or Barrack Hussein Obama under LAW instead of Barack Hussein Obama II and that would take a person able to get those documents from the closed files of his Adoption or lack of name change when he was taken into the fold by Lolo Soetoro, because without PROOF, you don't have a case.  We do have proof that he is NOT an NBC because he has stated it many times, in his books, and his inauguration speech and several other places, as well as  the fightthesmears.com website where he claimed his father was Barack Hussein Obama I and he was sired by a person who was under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and a Kenyan, not a Citizen of the proud America.  WE HAVE PROOF POSITIVE OF THOSE THINGS.... and until we can get hold of other documents that can show he never changedd his name or did change it, or a passport o rthe adoption records, we have to go with the NBC, cause it is TRUE and in the Constitution as a requirement of eligibility.

 

Maybe Arpiao has come up with some of those things, or he will  try relying on the NBC clause, but whichever he chooses, I hope he does it WELL and soon.....  The truth is out there and it is reachable, we just have to find the right persosn to get it for US and himself, and I really HOPE that person is Arpiao.

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #63 

Good luck getting any documentation from Indonesia.

 

On November 27, 2007, US congressman Eni Faleomavaega (D - Samoa) checked into the Sheraton in Jakarta, Indonesia.

In a meeting with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Faleomavaega asked to travel to Obama's childhood school. According to Southest Asian sources, "officials" who accompanied Faleomavaega were interested in acquiring any and all documentation or photographs of a young Barry Soetoro for America's "national archives" and they were offering cash, lots of it.

In a "show of faith," Barack Obama's childhood school was one of the very first beneficiaries of this outpouring receiving thousands of dollars to upgrade the school and for the purchase of computer equipment.

The challenge of course was securing Indonesian government records potentially damaging to Barack Obama's candidacy for the U. S. presidency as well as other records pertaining to a young Barry Soetoro and his family.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #64 

Another Obama lie -- "I was a constitutional law professor"

 

Ref:  Post #63 -- During the presidential campaign, Obama would consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, 'Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.' In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not.

The University of Chicago Law School has now posted a statement declaring his claims semantically sound: "The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as 'Senior Lecturer.'

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a instructor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #65 

The law school faculty hated Obama

According to TheBlogProf blog, the University of Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama, "because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool."

Is the Obama's resume accurate when it comes to his career and qualifications? I can corroborate that Obama's "teaching career" at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham.

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Consider this: Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer." He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.

A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor." Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school later confirmed.

"He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
  


By the way, the promises Obama mentions, are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

I apologize for taking this thread off topic, but I just can't abide Obama's lies.

BY the way, there are some interesting updates at TheBlogProf blog.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Seriously

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,060
Reply with quote  #66 
"In a "show of faith," Barack Obama's childhood school was one of the very first beneficiaries of this outpouring receiving thousands of dollars to upgrade the school and for the purchase of computer equipment."

Last I heard Obama never did follow through with that promise and they were not very happy about it.

__________________
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #67 

ALSO, He never followed through on his promise to give the schcool in Koeglo (sp?), Kenya a gift to make their school more of a school able to teach the children in Kenya, either.....  that school was/is next door to his GrandMothers place in that smalll village.  Didn't have running water or electricity, if I remember correctly.

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #68 

Wrong school!

 

The school that Obama stiffed was in his father's village in Kenya.

 

The school referenced above, was the Besuki school, in Jakarta, Indonesia.

 

The school in Kenya didn't have any embarrassing documents.

 

I don't mind being corrected, but get it right!

 

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #69 

Beckwith, 

 

I should have put into my post the word ALSO at the beginning, as I was simply and only adding to the list of promises he made to schools that he never followed through on, not correcting you in any way.....  I was trying to feed my pups and think at the same time, and sometimes that gets confusing........

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #70 

The point!

 

I was responding to your post #66 about acquiring documentation.
 

According to Southest Asian sources, "officials" who accompanied Faleomavaega were interested in acquiring any and all documentation or photographs of a young Barry Soetoro for America's "national archives" and they were offering cash, lots of it. 

That they were paying for it, was secondary.

 

The point is that any documentation that was in Indonesia regarding Obama has been acquired and long since destroyed by Team Obama.

 

It had nothing to do with making promises in this instance -- although he often does make empty ones..


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #71 

Originally, I  was answering Seriously's post, sorry again..... for not putting a name to the post, but it was immediately after her post, so I didn't think I needed to.....

McG

Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #72 
So, supposedly there's a presidential candidate in AZ running as a Democrat who is claiming he's already received information from either Arpiao himself or the CCP "lead investigator" that indeed is "devastating" to Obama.  His name is Dummet.

Anyone got more on this...?

http://www.johndummett.us/
Seriously

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,060
Reply with quote  #73 
It was brought up earlier in this thread
#48 & 49
http://theobamafile.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1272367499&postcount=48


__________________
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
McG

Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #74 

Thanks.  I must have just scrolled right on past it...  Interesting stuff! 

John Doe Sr.

Registered:
Posts: 65
Reply with quote  #75 
Here is the link to the article in which Dummett talked about the "devastating" information on Obama.....it was published on Dec. 9, 2011 and the meeting was on Dec. 5, 2011.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/12/10/presidential-candidate-meeting-with-sheriff-joe-arpaio-yielded-devastating-information/

If no one is "gotten to" before March 1st it's going to be interesting. I also believe a lot of people other than Sheriff Joe already have the information.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscribing
member

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2016
All rights reserved