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.

[PROSOUTH]

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

[Michael Michael]

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."

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Bump Dat!...

[Chunga]

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

Where ya from Mike?

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

“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...

[ReignOfError]

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.

[Frantzie]

If he was never eligble then he is not POTUS.

[ReignOfError]

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.

[Big_Monkey]

"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.

[Big_Monkey]

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

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

[Michael Michael]

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.

[conservativegramma]

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

[conservativegramma]

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

[philman_36]

Let's put these together...
Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 1
Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 2

[philman_36]

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.

[Michael Michael]

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

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

Some of them appear to be.