Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 2
The Right Side of Life ^ | March 5, 2009 | Phil

Posted on 03/05/2009 7:08:41 PM PST by conservativegramma

This evening, Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has released the second part of his three-part legal briefing stating his opinion of challenging the President’s authority via a prerogative writ known as quo warranto.

A key, fundamental observation on Mr. Donofrio’s part is the following excerpt:

Some who support Obama’s eligibility will seek to subvert the Constitution by arguing that the Constitution states that the sole remedy for removing the President is impeachment. Nowhere in the Document does it say that. Those who believe it must “imply” or “assume” that is the case. But the Constitution does not state that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.

The Constitution does say that Congress has the sole authority to impeach and the Senate to convict, and that the President “shall” be removed upon conviction, but it does not say that impeachment is the sole means of removal. You will hear people say that it does say that in the days ahead. It is a lie.

I have uncovered a plethora of evidence - within and without the Constitution - which I strongly believe proves that the framers provided Congress with the power to remove a President who is found to be ineligible. This makes sense because not every person who is found to be ineligible is guilty of a crime.

(Excerpt) Read more at therightsideoflife.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Brief at link.
1 posted on 03/05/2009 7:08:41 PM PST by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
The Constitution does say that Congress has the sole authority to impeach and the Senate to convict, and that the President “shall” be removed upon conviction, but it does not say that impeachment is the sole means of removal.

But for there to be any other means to remove a President from office, that means must be provided for by the Constitution. However there is no other means provided for by the Constitution.

If you believe there is, please reference it.

Otherwise, you're making the liberal argument that the federal government can do anything it wants unless the Constitution specifically says it can't, and completely ignore the Tenth Amendment.

So again, what other means is provided for by the Constitution to remove a President from office?


2 posted on 03/05/2009 7:20:04 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Obviously you didn’t read the brief. I’m not doing your homework for you.


3 posted on 03/05/2009 7:22:22 PM PST by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

ping


4 posted on 03/05/2009 7:22:34 PM PST by stockpirate (A people unwilling to use violent force to defend liberty deserves the tyrant that rules them SP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire; BulletBobCo; seekthetruth; Kevmo; gunnyg; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; ...

~~ping


5 posted on 03/05/2009 7:22:56 PM PST by STARWISE ( They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

I knew you would show up with that same ole argument.


6 posted on 03/05/2009 7:32:30 PM PST by YellowRoseofTx (Evil is not the opposite of God; it's the absence of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma; All
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. (Emphasis added.) If Congress didn't believe they had the authority to remove a usurper from any public office of the United States, they why did they enact the statute to cover every every public office of the United States? Why didn't they put the relevant excpetions in the statute? The 25th Amendment clarified "Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6″ only in so far as the clause needed clarification. It didn't need clarification as to death or resignation of the President as those are obvious, and it didn't need clarification as to issues of quo warranto and usurpers because they had enacted a thorough federal statute. CONCLUSION: The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed other than impeachment.
7 posted on 03/05/2009 7:50:32 PM PST by A. Morgan (Every night I pray that Rezko and Blago roll over on Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YellowRoseofTx

It’s called The Right to be there.

I’m a LEO and the Constitution says that if I don’t have the right to be there then an arrest or any fruit of the tree is poisoned. I say it applies here as well, the apple that Eve plucked was the downfall of Eden and the Apple OBAMA pulled from this tree was poisoned due to his ineligibility to be there.

Impeachment is removal from office for adjucation of a crime committed in office against the people or Constitution. Obama doesn’t even have the right to be there and should be shown the door. Go Leo!!!!!!!!!!!!


8 posted on 03/05/2009 7:52:24 PM PST by PROSOUTH ( Deo Vindice "God Will Vindicate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PROSOUTH

Leo’s argument appears to be that once Roberts swore the klown in, he was duly appointed to the job. His ‘right to be there’ was affirmed by the chief justice of the subpreme dungpile, flies and all.


9 posted on 03/05/2009 7:56:36 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Thanks for the ping! I heard Leo's entire interview and have read his brief at his web site. He will have more information up soon. He is still researching and preparing his letters to Holder and Taylor.

I am still wondering why Barack Hussien Obama aka Barry Soetoro has not just answered the simple questions and laid this all to rest. Would think his many attorneys would have advised him to just clear it up and release documents such as original birth certificate, college records, student loan records, selective service records, passport records, and health records. Tell me about a President who has not released such documents, and why wouldn't they?

10 posted on 03/05/2009 7:57:33 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PROSOUTH
Obama doesn’t even have the right to be there and should be shown the door. Go Leo!!!!!!!!!!!!

I completely agree. I heard Leo on the radio tonight and was so glad to hear he's back in the game. If your comments were in reference to my post to Michael, my comment was meant that on every one of these threads, Michael shows up with the same ole argument that the only way to remove Zero is by impeachment.

11 posted on 03/05/2009 7:59:06 PM PST by YellowRoseofTx (Evil is not the opposite of God; it's the absence of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: YellowRoseofTx

The politics of the day will never stand for removal of a standing President of any other method than impeachment. I don’t agree with it but I’m not in a position to give any directions to the SCOTUS and apparently they do not have the guts, or balls as us old codgers put it, to act upon the situation without their decision causing an uprising within the country and they know it won’t happen if they don’t. Another Civil War is not in the best interest of the country and will not happen by Government/ USSC direction.


12 posted on 03/05/2009 8:12:03 PM PST by PROSOUTH ( Deo Vindice "God Will Vindicate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

In case you hadn’t noticed, the Constitution has been irrelevant since at least 1937, if not 1857. No matter what you say, the courts will do whatever they like and call that the Constitution.


13 posted on 03/05/2009 8:23:17 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Obviously you didn’t read the brief. I’m not doing your homework for you.

I have read the brief. It's pathetic.

First, Donofrio refers to Chapter 35§ 16-3501 as a "federal statute." It is NOT a federal statute. It is a DC statute. That's why the statute is found in the DC Code, and not the United States Code.

Second, where he attempts to cite another means by which a President can be removed from office, he references Article II, Section 1, Clause 6.

The second section of the Constitution which provides the removal of the President is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.


Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 provides NOTHING with regard to the removal of the President. It ONLY provides for SUCCESSION to the office of President AFTER the President has been removed, died, resigned, or otherwise incapacitated during his term.

The ONLY power Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 grants Congress is the power to determine by law who shall succeed as President should BOTH the President and Vice President be removed from office, died, resigned, or become incapacitated.

That's it. No other power is granted to Congress nor does it provide for anything with regard to the removal of a President. It states only what is to happen AFTER removal.

Donofrio then tries to argue that Congress, by way of the quo warranto DC statute has DELEGATED its Article II, Section 4 powers to remove the President from office to the DC District Court.

But with the federal quo warranto statute, Congress has delegated that authority to the District Court of the District of Columbia by providing for the removal of the President (and other public officers) by quo warranto where the President is found to be a usurper to the office even if he assumed the office with a good faith belief he was eligible.


There is no provision in the Constitution for Congress to delegate ANY of its enumerated powers to ANY other branch of government.

Gee, how 'bout Obama gets the Democratic Congress to delegate Congress' legislative power to the executive branch?

According to Donofrio, there would be no Constitutional problem with this.

Doesn't no one see what an utterly asinine argument Donofrio is making here?


14 posted on 03/05/2009 8:26:38 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma; LucyT; Frantzie; Chief Engineer; maggief; El Gato; Scanian; BykrBayb; ...

ping

Donofrio’s re-entry


15 posted on 03/05/2009 8:31:58 PM PST by BonRad (As Rome goes so goes the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Morgan
CONCLUSION: The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed other than impeachment.

First, Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 has absolutely nothing to do with the removal of the President. It has only to do with presidential succession. The ONLY power it gives to Congress is the power to determine who shall succeed to the office of President in the (highly unlikely event) that BOTH the President AND Vice President be removed, die, etc.

Second, DC statutes do NOT trump the Constitution.


16 posted on 03/05/2009 8:35:21 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PROSOUTH
The politics of the day will never stand for removal of a standing President of any other method than impeachment.

It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the Constitution itself. There is no other provision in the Constitution for the removal of a sitting President to be removed from office except by impeachment in the House, and subsequent conviction in the Senate, as per Article II, Section 4.


17 posted on 03/05/2009 8:39:02 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BonRad

Thank you!


18 posted on 03/05/2009 8:48:13 PM PST by dixiechick2000 ("Most Effective Obama Critics: Charles Dow and Edward Jones" ~ John McCormack ~ The Weekly Standard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Well Politics or the State of the Union must have some bearing on this because the SCOTUS let the dog in and haven’t acknowledged any method of removal yet have they?

This must not have anything to do with the Constitution or he would have had to have had his eligibility proven before his admission to the office. Impeachment is removal for offense and Natural Born is a requirement to be eligible. So where is his eligibility?


19 posted on 03/05/2009 9:07:23 PM PST by PROSOUTH ( Deo Vindice "God Will Vindicate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PROSOUTH
Well Politics or the State of the Union must have some bearing on this because the SCOTUS let the dog in and haven’t acknowledged any method of removal yet have they?

I've no idea what you're trying to say here. Care you elaborate a bit?

This must not have anything to do with the Constitution or he would have had to have had his eligibility proven before his admission to the office.

There's nothing in the Constitution or in federal statutes that provides for proving one's eligibility, or to whom it must be proven to. The Constitution leaves that up to the political process, i.e. the states which provide for the appointing of electors, the electors themselves who cast the actual votes for President and Vice President, the Congress which certifies those electoral votes, and the judge who administers the oath of office.

The political process has already played out. And the only means by which a President may be removed from office is specified in Article II, Section 4.


20 posted on 03/05/2009 9:25:34 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Sorry for the double tap on “have had”

“There’s nothing in the Constitution or in federal statutes that provides for proving one’s eligibility, or to whom it must be proven to. The Constitution leaves that up to the political process”

I don’t agree with this statement. First it is a Constitutional Requirement to be a Natural Born Citizen no matter what you say, and the Federal Election Commission is responsible for checking this; their failure to do so or having a loophole for him to circumvent this does not negate a requirement to be so. To the second part of your statement “The Constitution leaves that up to the political process” then so be it, the political process requires you to be Natural born and the only reason he fell through the crack is a federal funding of candidate that he somehow knew to refuse in order to avoid showing proof of eligibility. Again not having the right to be there would not require impeechment

Third, why am I arguing with a fence post with a rotten bottom anyway? Goodnight and as the old saying goes you take your dog home an I’ll take mine. Goodnight. LOL J


21 posted on 03/05/2009 9:54:43 PM PST by PROSOUTH ( Deo Vindice "God Will Vindicate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PROSOUTH
I don’t agree with this statement.

That's fine.

First it is a Constitutional Requirement to be a Natural Born Citizen no matter what you say...

I never said otherwise, so I don't know why you say "no matter what you say."

...and the Federal Election Commission is responsible for checking this...

Really? Would you care to show me where in the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations that the Federal Election Commission is charged with the responsibility of checking the Article II requirements of Presidential candidates?

First, the FEC is only charged with enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act, which hasn't anything to do with Article II requirements. It only deals with elections, specifically the financing of elections.

Second, the requirements in Article II only apply to holding the office of President. Not to anyone campaigning or seeking the office.

...their failure to do so or having a loophole for him to circumvent this does not negate a requirement to be so.

There is no failure and there is no loophole. Again, the FEC isn't charged either by statute or regulation to do anything with regard to checking on Article II requirements.

“The Constitution leaves that up to the political process” then so be it, the political process requires you to be Natural born...

No, the political process only deals with the appointing of electors, the casting and certification of electoral votes, and administering the oath of office.

There is nothing in the political process, either by way of the Constitution or federal statute which says anything akin to "And at this point, the candidate must prove their eligibility."


22 posted on 03/05/2009 10:15:13 PM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: BonRad

Bump Dat!...


24 posted on 03/05/2009 11:28:26 PM PST by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael
Doesn't no one see what an utterly asinine argument Donofrio is making here?

Where ya from Mike?

25 posted on 03/05/2009 11:29:08 PM PST by Chunga (Vote Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Chunga

“It’s” an O’Bammy Paid Troll!!

Look at “It’s” sign up date!!!

Look at “It’s” post history!!!

“IT” is only on FR to try to call BS on O’Bammy the

Basturd’s lack of a vault copy of his BC,,,

“IT” Trolls the BC threads only to try to stop us from

posting anything that puts his “Boss” in a bad light...


26 posted on 03/05/2009 11:54:44 PM PST by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael

Stepping back from the specific language, checks and balances were the clear intent of the Framers. That a single district court judge could unseat a president is ludicrous. The Constitution prescribes precisely one means of removing a president from office, and it’s impeachment.


27 posted on 03/06/2009 12:34:46 AM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

If he was never eligble then he is not POTUS.


28 posted on 03/06/2009 7:24:14 AM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
If he was never eligble then he is not POTUS.

So you say. There is no such provision in the Constitution. For a district court judge to declare a president ineligible amounts to the same thing as a judge removing him from office -- a massive expansion of judicial power and a complete rejection of checks and balances.

29 posted on 03/06/2009 9:30:31 AM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
"a massive expansion of judicial power and a complete rejection of checks and balances.

I would add that the legislature so respected the idea of checks and balances, that when the 108th Congress defined the Rules of Impeachment, there was great deference given to Salmon P Chase's advise on how to conduct the Impeachment Trial. The Congress didn't want to be seen as usurping the fundamental idea of checks and balances in our system of government. As such, the Rules much more closely resembled a trial, rather than a legislative session of the Senate. And at the trial of Johnson, you saw the precedent set for having the Chief Justice of SCOTUS preside over the preceding.

To think for a moment that the people who drafted the constitution would give the power to a single district court judge to unilaterally remove a sitting President or Vice President is simply laughable.

30 posted on 03/06/2009 10:03:40 AM PST by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

It should read the “40th Congress” not the “108th Congress” - sorry for the typo.


31 posted on 03/06/2009 10:14:36 AM PST by Big_Monkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
The Constitution does say that Congress has the sole authority to impeach and the Senate to convict, and that the President “shall” be removed upon conviction, but it does not say that impeachment is the sole means of removal. You will hear people say that it does say that in the days ahead. It is a lie.

Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

That is the sole means of disqualifying the President or Vice President. No other means of removal is stated or implied. Now that he's been sworn in, then if Obama is found to be ineligible he'll have to be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate.

32 posted on 03/06/2009 10:24:06 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey
To think for a moment that the people who drafted the constitution would give the power to a single district court judge to unilaterally remove a sitting President or Vice President is simply laughable.

Yes, it is.

And just goes to show that those who disingenuously wrap themselves in the Constitution claiming to be defending it won't think twice about wiping their a** with it if it doesn't serve their political agenda.


33 posted on 03/06/2009 10:33:07 AM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Don’t argue with me - I didn’t write the brief - argue with Leo. All I did was post the article.

You two attorneys can go duke it out in the courtroom. I’ll just watch. Thanks.


34 posted on 03/06/2009 1:54:33 PM PST by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Don’t argue with me - I didn’t write the brief - argue with Leo.

I've read his stuff. It'd be like arguing with the village idiot.

35 posted on 03/06/2009 2:27:50 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Lawyers are village idiots? Nice. I’ve thought that for years!!!!!!!


36 posted on 03/06/2009 7:06:25 PM PST by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Let's put these together...
Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 1
Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 2
37 posted on 03/06/2009 11:29:44 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
After having read both Part 1 and Part 2 all I can say is...
This is gonna get real interesting real fast.
And after a quick perusal of both threads some of the very arguments he said would be presented have been.
Perhaps the naysayers should read up first.
38 posted on 03/06/2009 11:32:41 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
After having read both Part 1 and Part 2 all I can say is...
This is gonna get real interesting real fast.


Only if you consider Donofrio getting faceplanted "real interesting."



Perhaps the naysayers should read up first.

I've read it. Donofrio makes an absolute mockery of the Constitution in his attempt to make his argument fly.

Funny how all of a sudden the Constitution doesn't seem to matter so much.


39 posted on 03/07/2009 2:20:20 AM PST by Michael Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Lawyers are village idiots? Nice. I’ve thought that for years!!!!!!!

Some of them appear to be.

40 posted on 03/07/2009 5:37:18 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Michael Michael
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Have a nice day.
41 posted on 03/07/2009 5:43:20 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Hello again. Fancy seeing you here.
You never did make any response about that gift comment you made the other day...
42 posted on 03/07/2009 5:46:32 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I've read his stuff. It'd be like arguing with the village idiot.

I'm sure you'd present more of a challenge than that to him. Then again, maybe not...

43 posted on 03/07/2009 12:12:13 PM PST by Excuse_Me (I'm pretty sure that only Liberals can be hypnotized...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson