Replies

Barnett, et. al. v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009

"The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”"

And if that person is acting President without legal auhority? Who removes a usurper?

Judge Carter made the assumption that there is someone in the oval office that meets the Constitutional requirements.

Who's job is it to determine Barry is a "natural born Citizen?" Is that Congress's job?

I am not very good at “lawyer talk” so forgive me if I use the wrong words. However, for the sake of this conversation, I will assume for the moment you are correct and that the ultimate remedy (the removal from office), can only be accomplished by congress. But what prevents the courts from hearing the case, coming to a conclusion based on LAW and forwarding their findings to congress for action? If congress fails to act, then we know where to focus the blame. But if the courts fail to act, they also shoulder the blame. I do not expect much from the currupt congress until there is a court case that forces them to act.

“However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President...”

________________________________________________________

It is due to this is why I hope that Orly does not ask for this specific action at all in her case.

Removing a sitting President is not going to be done via silver bullet court case. There are so many things that work against this that it should not even be on the radar.

When it comes to what action she wants to take she should make simple. So simple that there would be no logical reason to deny it. For example - the payment of $1 for legal fees in the case.

If you shoot too high they will find a reason to slap you down. So go the other direction - shoot way low. So low they can not deny for any reason.

Since she has the default judgement pending maybe she should just the facts stand and ask for the simplest of things to get the judgement on the books - a symbolic $1 that would basically be an admission.

Once the first domino falls with a successful day in court other dominoes will appear and will fall hopefully.

Just a thought.