Not my job.
Posted on 10/29/2009 5:25:46 PM PDT by rxsid
Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
I was impressed with the integrity of Judge Carter’s ruling today. It gives me hope that the POTUS eligibility issue will eventually have its day in court on the merits.
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.
Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President. The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions. A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion. This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.
The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. It’s really that simple. Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.
QUO WARRANTO
Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts - Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.
There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.
The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.
Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.
Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.
The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.
Meanwhile, it’s important for me to point out that everything I have told readers of this blog about quo warranto was confirmed by Judge Carter today.
JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.
This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.
Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.
The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.
This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.
THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ERROR
The only part of today’s ruling I take issue with is footnote 3 on page 22 where Judge Carter assumes that since Congress has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation regarding naturalization and citizenship by statute that they also have the power to define the meaning of “natural born citizen”.
But Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.
Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.
Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
C. Quo Warranto Claims…The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “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.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Nothing in this rule appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must comment Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue."
Leo supposedly is also a very good chess player. He said he has recently played in some tournaments and won one. I think he said he had draws with guys that have a 2200 to 2300 rating. The highest USCF rating ever was Bobby Fischer who was at 2810. His FIDE rating was 2785.
I think the guys Leo got draws from were just below grandmasters.
He strikes me as the exact opposite type of lawyer that Dr. Taitz is. That is, that he's not willing to put numerous unsound and piece meal type lawsuits together (as they've been described by many) and hope that one sticks. He seems to be the kind of attorney that will represent another in the near future, but one that has a better chance of succeeding based on all lesson's learned to date. And yes, much of his "pontificating" has been very educational (ex. Chester Arthur research, QW research, etc) to the country. Anyway, that's my take on the difference.
Donofrio hasn’t done anything since his own case was shot down except criticize and bloviate.
Those are good and true points you made about Leo.
“Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
Excuse me for being obtuse. The Feds claim authority over everyone and everything in the U.S. but the Judge says Obama holds office in DC?
He hasn’t published any QW research? Or Chester Arther research? No Hawaiian statute research?
Please explain to me WHO would name a special prosecutor?
“The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
Doesn’t he hold office in ALL districts - and therefore can’t the writ be brought in ANY district?
Okay, I’ll read this and maybe take heart again.
Thank you for the ping! So this means there’s still a chance!
bump
Thank You.
Not my job.
They need (someone needs) to bring it on, get’r’done.. Am so sick of the bs. Keyes needs a strong attorney pronto. Hit ‘em hard and fast and let no one see what’s coming.
They would have the cojones if they are true constitutional conservatives and not rinos.
.
“The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
Doesn’t he hold office in ALL districts - and therefore can’t the writ be brought in ANY district?
********************************************************
No, Congress has the Constitutional power, and Congress delegated this power (by way of the quo warranto statute) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Personally, I have NEVER wanted a court to remove POTUS Obama from office. However, I have wanted one to rule that he did not meet the NBC criteria so it would go to the SCOTUS to make a definitive ruling. Then if they ruled him unqualified Congress would have to remove him via the impeachment process or set a very bad precident.
Spot on (almost). Lower court to find him ineligible. Ruling confirmed by SCOTUS. Removed from office (taken into custody) by way of federal marshal’s or the FBI since Impeachment is reserved for a POTUS and not an usurper.
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.