I know, Carter ruled that the judiciary can’t remove a president,
but everyone understands that declaring him ineligible forces the hand of the legislature to actually deal with the situation,
and they don’t want to be the instigators of that.
The requirements for president are not complicated. Natural born citizenship is defined in a dozen supreme court cases and the source cited in at least four. The most concise and earliest is Minuteman, founder, delegate to the Virginia Ratification Committee, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall in a case named for a ship. The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, on page 289. A natural born citizen is born of the soil of parents who are its citizens. That definition has never been changed in spite of at least 24 attempts to do so, the last about ten years ago by Orren Hatch. Obama is illegitimate, and no birth certificate need be discovered, not even the one he described having found in Bill Ayres book “Dreams From My Father.”
The “standing” issue was EXACTLY created because the SCOTUS did not want the people or government to recognize exactly how impotent and powerless they are. They can order all day, but what do they command to enforce their decisions? How can a judicial member force an equal branch of government (Obama IS the executive branch) to do anything.
The issue should have been addressed before he was given authority, but people were and are fools.
Now I don’t have hope it will be resolved.
The only branch of government with the power to remove a sitting President is the U.S.Congress.
Impeachment is reserved for legally elected officials.
The legislative branch realized usurpers occasionally made it into office and so created legislation for Quo Warranto, delegating their power to remove a President to the District Court in Wahington, D.C.
The correct avenue for removing a usurper President is via the District Court in Washington, D.C., as directed by this legislation created and passed by the Federal legislative branch.
As per Leo Donofrio:
“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.”
No, they cant' do that because no suit can be brought that does not seek some action by the court, that the court has the power and jurisdiction to command. They don't issue "advisory opinions.
You have to come up with something they can do, like assess monetary damages. That might get the truth out, but then again standing is a very clear, but very flexible, concept.