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.