Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 2 (with Exhibits)

The Right Side of Life ^ | 3/6/09 | Leo Donofrio

[classical artist]

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.

[classical artist]

Leo is writing a book -this is impressive!

[FocusNexus]

But everyone will be convinced he was born in Hawaii, after the students of UofH will make a film about Obama’s birth —no joke. (my statement about everyone being convinced is sarcasm, but the plans for a film are real)

See:

Film to Be Made in Hawaii of Obama’s Birth

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2201720/posts

[Man50D]

I noticed in the case of In Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, it states It permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia.

Does "and" mean both are required to file Quo Warranto?

[Kansas58]

I am trying to mesh this post with what Orly Taitz (SP?) is doing.

I think I might understand better now, though the author of this post makes clear that perhaps he would have done it differently.

I am one who has always thought that Obama was hiding something, though I was not sure what he was hiding.

Paternity, Geography, College Admission/Grant/Loan status Lots of questions.

I have said that I thought state legislatures need to address this issue, since States control ballots, and their Electors, to the Electoral College.

I was not sure why I felt that way, that most of the present cases were only useful for publicity, that these cases, on their own, would probably not remove Obama, but now I feel like I understand what was bothering me.

Separation of Powers is important.

Also, I would rather the Obama qualifications issue is well known, prior to the next Presidential election, even to the point that maybe Obama will not appear on the ballot in a couple of states due to documentation issues.

I think there will be hell to pay, if Obama is forced out before this term is up. I would rather the voters rebuke him, in 2 years, and then kick him out, in 4.

However, the law is the law and the lawyers who are on these cases deserve our support and prayers.

[Michael Michael]

Leo is writing a book -this is impressive!

Nah. He's just trying to turn law into "performance art," And shi**ing on the Constitution in the process.

Remember Serrano's "Piss Christ" which was a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine? Well, this is basically "Sh** Constitution."

Just for starters:

Because Congress is the only branch authorized by the Constitution to remove the President should he be found ineligible. And the only court Congress has delegated that power to is the District Court of the District of Columbia, and such delegation of power is strictly limited to actions governed by the federal quo warranto statute.

Congress has no power under the Constitution to grant powers expressly limited to it to another branch of government.

Donofrio's argument here would allow Congress to delegate its power to legislate to the executive branch. Effectively creating a dictator.

This goes completely against the fundamental concept of separation of powers which is the very framework of our Constitution.

2. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.

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.

Yes, it does state that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President. It does so by providing for no other means, nor does it empower Congress in any other fashion.

Congress may only do that which it is constitutionally empowered to do.

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.

All that can be constitutional is that which is WITHIN the Constitution, not without it.

HYPOTHETICAL:

Two double agents born in the evil nation of “KILLAMERICASTAN” sneak a child into America over the Canadian border and later obtain false documents indicating they are US citizens and that their child was born in the United States. The child is raised like a Manchurian Candidate and believes his parents are US citizens and that he was born in the US. The child grows up a gifted politician and eventually becomes President. After being sworn in, the truth is discovered by US Intelligence and proved beyond any doubt. The President then refuses to leave office since he didn’t do anything wrong and had no knowledge of the plot.

What happens?

What happens?

Well, according to Donofrio, we just wipe our collective a**es with the Constitution and have the DC District Court remove them from office.

For anyone who actually gives a rat's sphincter about the Constitution, they recognize that the Constitution has a shortcoming and propose amending it as prescribed by Article V.

Well, the President has done nothing to be impeached. He’s not guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanors, bribery or treason. Did the framers leave us naked in such a situation? I don’t believe so.

The framers knew that they didn't know everything and that they couldn't conceive of every possible scenario. So to that end, they included Article V in the Constitution to allow for it to be amended in the event that the Constitution came to have any shortcomings.

My respect for the separation of powers in our Constitution is the core reason I was so willing to drop the eligibility fight once the Electoral College met. I understand and respect the Constitution.

Yeah, sure you do. Up until it gets in the way of whatever your political agenda is, and then you'll use smoke and mirrors to create some false illusion of constitutionality.

Taking a cue from the Renhquist court in Roe v. Wade there, Leo? Shall we call your theory the "Donofrio Penumbra"? I think that's a perfect name for it and that's what I think I'll refer to it from now on.

I realize this is an entirely new theory of Constitutional law...

Damn right it's new. Because before this theory was cooked up, the only only place it had previously existed was in Donofrio's a**.

...and that the common accepted interpretation is that the President can only be removed by impeachment. As stated above, the Constitution does notstate anywhere in its text that impeachment is the only means by which the President can be removed.

Again, yes it does as again it provides no other means nor does it empower Congress to do anything else.

Donofrio here is essentially making the classical liberal argument that Congress can do whatever it wants unless the Constitution specifically says that it can't.

That's not how it works. And that argument doesn't fly when liberals make it to support something they want Congress to do and it doesn't fly here for Donofrio.

But it seems clear that there are those who are willing to sell out their principles in order to further a political agenda.

[classical artist]

Your thinking is twisted! Donofrio loves the constitution! He is doing this research with out any pay just out of love for the law & this country. Your comment adds nothing to the conversation.

[Kansas58]

What has been “shredded” to me, is any doubt that Michael Michael is an Obama troll.

He wants us to believe that he is concerned about the Constitution, yet Michael Michael obviously cares little about the very real Constitutional eligibility question at the heart of this matter. He pops up on the “birther” threads, almost always, but I have not seen him much, elsewhere, have you?

Also, to me, Donafrio has obviously given a huge amount of time and effort to the cause of trying to resolve the matter without a Constitutional crisis.

MM says that Congress can not change the Constitution (in so many words)??

Well, Donofrio pointed out exactly where the Constitution actually granted the powers and process that Donafrio suggests.

In a nutshell, if Michael Michael does not like the end result? Michael Michael will call that option “unconstitutional” -— every now and then he is correct, but his success, with that strategy, has nothing at all to do with MM’s concern for any of our founding documents.

[Scanian]

He’s been on FR since 1-27 and what has he done besides obfuscate on eligibility threads? He claims to be a true conservative but try to find any other issue that arouses his interest on FR. There are none. He is here strictly for misdirection and obfuscation purposes.

[real_patriotic_american]

What is Obama hiding? All he has to do is produce a $10 copy of his birth certificate... When someone hides something, they have something to hide.

[Michael Michael]

What is Obama hiding? All he has to do is produce a $10 copy of his birth certificate...

He's already done that. That's what you get when you send your $10 to Hawaii requesting a copy of your birth certificate.

[real_patriotic_american]

No, that was a COLB that experts allege is a forgery.

The only evidence coming out is that Obama was born in Kenya. His mother had left the USA and was to young to pass along citizenship. At the time of Obama’s birth, Kenya was a British territory. Obama’s father was a British citizen. Thus, Obama was born a British citizen. That makes Obama ineligible to serve as President. I believe that he will be removed from the Oval office

[Michael Michael]

No, that was a COLB that experts allege is a forgery.

A Certification of Live Birth is a certified copy of one's birth certificate. It's not a document unto itself.

And the only ones alleging it to be a forgery is someone who was long ago exposed as a fraud who fabricated his "evidence," and another person who's no expert at all, and really doesn't know the first thing about digital graphics and imaging.

[real_patriotic_american]

Re-read what I wrote. Obama was born in Kenya according to his grandmother who was present at his birth, his mother was to young to pass along USA citizenship, and his father was a British citizen in the British territory of Kenya. Obama was born a British citizen... That is why Obama won’t show his original birth certificate.

You sound like Michael Moore to me!

[Michael Michael]

The only evidence coming out is that Obama was born in Kenya

There's not one shred of credible evidence to support that.

His mother had left the USA and was to young to pass along citizenship.

If he were born outside the United States, which again, there's not one shred of credible evidence to support that.

Obama’s father was a British citizen. Thus, Obama was born a British citizen. That makes Obama ineligible to serve as President.

Whatever some other country considered him, is irrelevant. Natural born citizenship of the United States is jus solis, just as it was when our Constitution was ratified and thereafter. The citizenship of your parents doesn't matter, unless your parents are foreign diplomats residing in the US in the direct service of their respective countries.

[Michael Michael]

Re-read what I wrote. Obama was born in Kenya according to his grandmother who was present at his birth...

His grandmother never claimed he was born in Kenya.

Obama was born a British citizen...

His being born in Hawaii makes him a natural born US citizen.

[real_patriotic_american]

Firmly false! Obama’s grandmother claims on video to have been present when Obama was born in Kenya. There is no evidence being produced of Obama being born in Hawaii.

Why won’t Obama produce his original birth certificate for the authorities? When someone hides something, they have something to hide.

You must be a Democrat!

[Michael Michael]

Firmly false! Obama’s grandmother claims on video to have been present when Obama was born in Kenya.

Sorry, there is no such video of Obama's grandmother claiming to have been present at Obama's birth.

There is no evidence being produced of Obama being born in Hawaii.

Of course there has. There has been the Certification of Live birth showing him to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii, along with unambiguous statements by Hawaiian officials that they have Obama's birth certificate on file.

Why won’t Obama produce his original birth certificate for the authorities?

Because no authority has ever asked for it.

What, is it your habit to regularly stop cops on the street and show them your driver's license?

[little jeremiah]

MM thinks that lots of people read his steaming piles thinly disguised as “comments”. He signed up solely to harrass people on the 0bama eligibility threads. Many think he’s a paid operative.

[little jeremiah]

Meant to add - he THINKS lots of people read his comments. Most people see his regurtitated twaddle and skip over it.

[TheBigJ]

The COLB Zero posted on his websites.

Now he can simply give a material copy to the court as evidence, after all...

It’s the short form reflection of his original sealed BC right?

And this short form shows on his websites he was born in HOnolulu HI right?

So why hasn’t Zero turned over this documentation to the courts and halt the never-ending lawsuits and bad publicity?

Or maybe he just likes pouring money out of his a**

Yes, please explain.