Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 2

The Right Side of Life ^ | March 5, 2009 | Phil

[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.

[conservativegramma]

Brief at link.

[Michael Michael]

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?

[conservativegramma]

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

[stockpirate]

ping

[STARWISE]

~~ping

[YellowRoseofTx]

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

[A. Morgan]

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.

[PROSOUTH]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MHGinTN]

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.

[seekthetruth]

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?

[YellowRoseofTx]

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.

[PROSOUTH]

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.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

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.

[Michael Michael]

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?

[BonRad]

ping

Donofrio’s re-entry

[Michael Michael]

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.

[Michael Michael]

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.

[dixiechick2000]

Thank you!

[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?

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?

[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?

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.