Why do both Obama’s State Department and the Senate require two US citizen parents for those born abroad to attain natural born citizen status?

Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

The State Department is part of the Executive Branch.  The Foreign Affairs Manual is hosted at “State.gov” (see URL).  Please note that the analysis of eligibility by the State Department – now controlled by Obama – requires two US Citizen parents.

Many have argued that Senate Resolution 511 – which served to falsely sanitize John McCain’s POTUS eligibility – states that a natural born citizen is a person born abroad to “American citizens” – plural.

[UPDATED: 9:07AM] – The actual language of the resolution reads as follows:

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Furthermore, the official statement of Senator Leahy which is part of the congressional record to the proposed resolution states:

Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.

And finally, the testimony of Secretary Cherthoff who was a Federal Judge was also made part of the official record.  He stated:

My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

The argument has merit to the Obama eligibility issue in that Senate Resolution 511 – co-sponsored by Obama – does not state that a person is a natural born citizen if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

The magic question is:

Why was it important to all who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511 that both parents be citizens?

What was their logic?  The question is certainly not the same as to Obama because McCain was born abroad and not on US soil.  Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, his supporters argue birth on US soil alone makes him a natural born citizen.  I recognize there is a difference in circumstance.

However, the important point to be made with regard to Senate Resolution 511 concerns the policy that appears to prohibit a person from natural born citizen status if born abroad to only one citizen parent.

Why does it require two citizen parents?  What is the policy behind the language requiring two US citizen parents?  This is where the issue can be further supported by your questioning of Senators.  Policy as used with regards to the drafting of laws is a legal term of art.  It’s analogous to concern.  What legal concern is acknowledged by requiring two citizen parents?  Get the Senate and Obama to answer that question.

Obama eligibility supporters have argued that back when the framers drafted the Constitution women couldn’t vote and therefore a preference for acknowledging the father’s citizenship prevailed as to the son.  These Obama supporters argue that if the Constitution ever required two citizen parents for natural born citizenship such requirement is not relevant any longer since women can now vote by Constitutional amendment.

To that argument I will now ask why Senate Resolution 511 doesn’t state that a person born abroad to one citizen parent is a natural born citizen?

WHY DOES THE SENATE REQUIRE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS OF THOSE BORN ABROAD?

What is so important and relevant to natural born citizen status that both parents must be citizens if the child is born abroad? How would Obama, who co-sponsored Senate Resolution 511, answer this question?  This is the question you need to now ask your Senators who agreed unanimously to Senate Resolution 511.  Get a quote on the record answering this question.

I’m trying to imagine their answers in light of the Obama dual nationality issue and the arguments which claim he is not eligible according to the framer’s intent and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen.  They would have no other reason to argue both parents be citizens other than the safety of the nation and the framers intent.

Ask them specifically how they have determined their level of concern requiring two US citizen parents.  It will not be easy for them to craft a response which doesn’t also acknowledge the very same concerns for person’s born on US soil to a parent who was never a US citizen.

But more important is that the very same question now needs to be asked of Obama’s own State Department which to this day also acknowledges the necessity of citizen parents on the same issue in their continued publication of the Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1131.6-2.

Again, that section states:

“It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.”

Why does the Obama State Department’s continued publication of the Foreign Affairs manual acknowledge that the issue requires two US citizen parents?

What is the policy requiring both parents be US citizens as opposed to just one?

Please also note that Senate Resolution 511 does not discuss ordinary “citizenship”.  This is a fine distinction which needs to be noted clearly.  In Senate Resolution 511 they acknowledged that natural born citizenship is not the same as citizenship.  Since one can become a citizen by naturalization, neither parent would need to be a US citizen.

In Senate Resolution 511, the Senate has acknowledged that “citizens” are not the same for Constitutional purposes as “natural born citizens”.  This is confirmation, even signed on by Obama, that it takes something more to be a “natural born citizen” of the US rather than just a “citizen” of the US.  Those who argue they are the same for purposes of POTUS eligibility must be confronted by Obama’s own admission in both co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 511 and publishing the Foreign Affairs manual that they are not one in the same thing.

I do not agree at all with the Senate’s definition of “natural born citizen” in Senate Resolution 511,  but I do agree with the Senate and Obama that all citizens are not natural born citizens for purposes of satisfying the rigid requirements to be President in Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.

World Net Daily Drops The POTUS Ineligiblity Ball…

World Net Daily White House Correspondent Les Kinsolving recently had the chance to ask Obama’s Press Secretary Gibbs a question about the eligibility issue and he fumbled at the golden goal.

Whether they know it or not, WND is causing massive distraction by feeding the birth certificate smokescreen more and more fire while consistently failing to concentrate national focus on the core legal issue - Obama admits to being a British citizen at birth and therefore could not have been a “natural born citizen” of the United States as is required by the Constitution.

Phil at Right Side of Life has the most in depth coverage and actual video footage of the WND-White House Experience.

Fox News and the London Times also covered the eligibility issue and Phil has all of that at the link above.

I am very concerned that the amount of serious media attention the birth certificate issue is currently generating is NOT due to some mass awakening of citizens but rather a calculated device put in place by the powers that be as a set up for crushing the eligibility movement once and for all.

One of these days the Obama administration might serve up for your culinary consumption the most perfect long form birth certificate you could ever imagine.  Hawaii officials will vouch for its authenticity under oath if need be.  And numerous forensic experts will substantiate its veracity.

Then the POTUS eligibility movement is going to look like a vast nutjob right wing conspiracy.

And the ineligible one will be so much stronger and more powerful for it.

The BC thing is a side dish, not the main course.  Any discussion of the BC issue should be subordinate to the dual nationality issue.

The false BC theory is – without a doubt - a conspiracy theory of epic proportions. Nobody can deny that it’s a textbook conspiracy theory.  Regardless of whether he has a genuine long form BC saying he was born in Hawaii, the concept that the COLB is a forgery would certainly concern a vast conspiracy to defraud the American people.  Conspiracies do exist, but they have a very bad reputation and the media can spin them as kookery with ease.

The dual nationality issue is NOT a conspiracy theory. It’s a genuine legal question.  Obama admits he was a dual citizen at birth.   Eligibility advocates have simply questioned whether that makes him ineligible to be President under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

BC = Conspiracy theory

DUAL NATIONALITY ADMISSION = legal question

Now doesn’t it make sense that they would rather focus ridicule on the conspiracy theory by allowing broad discussion of it rather than face a genuine legal question to which the great body of law and precedent stands to threaten their power grip?

But you just keep believing in false legal prophets.  Go on.  See where it gets you America.

Let me make this perfectly clear – below is the question that must be asked of White House Press Secretary Gibbs should anyone ever have the chance again.  It’s been crafted with razor sharp precision so that slippery tongued vixens can’t slither out of the truth nexus without exposing themselves to even the most sleepy of audiences.

Make this question your mantra.  Don’t be distracted from it.

THIS IS WHAT YOU ASK GIBBS NEXT TIME, WND:

During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948.  Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?

Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

One of my readers by the name of  Stephen Tonchen has created an introductory primer on Obama POTUS eligibility.  Much of the substance of the primer has been culled from my blog and helpfully supplemented by Mr. Tonchen’s own research.  This is by far the most clear, concise and powerful document created to help educate your friends and family on the eligibility issue.  I strongly urge my readers to download it and to link to it wherever possible.

I will just reprint its discussion about the important and still controlling SCOTUS case – Minor vs. Happersett:

• In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:
  

  The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

• In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
  

  …it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

• In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.

It is those same doubts discussed so openly in the Minor case that need to be discussed in open court today.  If SCOTUS expressed such doubts then, then our current SCOTUS ought to enlighten us now.  As I’ve stated over and again, this is a legal question already considered by our highest court in 1874 – a full six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted.  This is an important time reference which should be wielded at all who state the 14th Amendment is controlling as to nbc status.  It is not.  SCOTUS expressed their doubts clearly six years later in the Minor case which has never been over-ruled.

The issue is not a conspiracy theory, it is a legal question, a legal question that SCOTUS precedent admits to not having cleared up yet.  It is not settled law and until it is our country and the Presidency are not legitimate.

My Citizenspook blog has been hacked again…

Readers of this blog will recall that my Citizenspook blog – which I have been locked out of since I began the natural born citizen blog – was hacked back on January 13, 2009 when somebody put up a post – allegedly from me – which made a reference to the film V For Vendetta and was titled “The Gunpowder Treason and Plot”.  It hinted in a sinister manner that something was to happen around the time of the inauguration.

That was on January 13, 2009.  Then on January 16th I was supposed to be in Philadelphia for the Liberty Bell Open Chess tournament.  But I had car trouble on my way back from Las Vegas and that delayed my arrival at the tournament by a day.  I arrived on January 17th and to my astonishment was shocked to hear that Obama had stayed in the same hotel as the tournment -Sheraton City Center – and had just left the premises two hours before I arrived.  He took over three floors with security and bomb sniffing dogs everywhere.

I went on to win my section of the tournament.  I wrote about this in the following two blog posts

Liberty Bell Open Chess and Obama

MY CITIZENSPOOK BLOG HAS BEEN HACKED

I just noticed today that on June 9, 2009 the citizenspook blog was hacked again to show an update on the Jeffrey Taylor resignation.

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

I did not post this just as I never posted the Gunpowder plot post.

I do not have access to the blog.  I can’t get  in.  I have documented the original hack which mentioned V for Vendetta and I have screengrabs from other cites who also published that post.  I will be contacting US Government authorities including Patrick Fitzgerald’s office.

I do not believe Obama showing up at the Liberty Bell Open – three days after my Citizenspook blog was hacked to show an extremist vibe concerning the bombing of Government buildings – could possibly be a coincidence.

I have to report this activity to protect myself.  Coincidences like this are just too far removed from accidental nature.  I belonged at the Sheraton City Center.  I won the damn tournament in my section and  a   $705 check for 1st place.  I belonged there.  I go to that hotel and stay there three times a year, the Liberty Bell Open, The World Open and The National Chess Congress.  That hotel is a regular hang out for me.

Obama did not belong there.

His stay there was the one and only deviation Obama took from Lincoln’s path during Obama’s inauguration.

Anything posted on the Citizenspook blog after Feb 21, 2007 was NOT posted by me.

US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor Resigns

On May 28, Jeffrey Taylor resigned as acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia.   I have not heard from one person who got a response from him regarding their quo warranto letters.

I did hear from one person who had proof that their QW letter to Taylor had been rerouted to the White House.

There is much speculation as to why Taylor resigned.  I think it’s interesting to note that while he didn’t file a quo warranto regarding Obama’s eligibility, he also never told anyone who wrote to him that Obama was actually eligible and that Obama had been properly vetted which was the canned response from all of Congress.

Taylor never made such a statement.

It will be interesting to see now whether his successor in the DC US Attorney’s office – Channing Phillips – will issue a statement saying Obama is eligible.

Was Taylor pressured to resign because he wouldn’t vouch for Obama?  I don’t know.  But I do know Taylor didn’t have the support of enough US citizens.  So America gets what America deserves – the destruction of its Constitution because the great majority of US citizens don’t care about their Constitution.

My suggestion to anybody who does care is to send your quo warranto letters to US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.  Perhaps since the DC Code statute is vague in its wording – only requiring “the US Attorney” to file for the quo warranto – it could be used by any US Attorney.  That is not my original interpretation, but after seeing this fiasco play out, and listening to the lame excuses favoring Obama’s eligibility, I don’t see why any US Attorney couldn’t use the statute.   The statute just says “the US Attorney”.

I think Patrick Fitzgerald is your best bet now.  At least you’ll probably get a response from his office.

Three US Postal Receipts for Letters to US Attorney Taylor?

People are writing to me and claiming that US Attorney Taylor will never touch the eligibility issue to bring a quo warranto challenging Obama’s title to the office of President.  Many are also saying that we the people have exhausted all legal options and that we must look outside the Constitution for justice.

I say there is no justice outside of the Constitution and that if you sink to that level of thought the true enemies of the Constitution will have defeated you and it forevermore.

But the people have not even come close to doing everything in their power to see that the Constitution is protected.  The Constitutionally proper way to challenge POTUS eligibility is via the DC Code quo warranto statute.

I DO NOT SEE A CONCERTED EFFORT BY “WE THE PEOPLE” TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT US ATTORNEY TAYLOR BEGIN AN INQUIRY IN QUO WARRANTO AS TO OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY.

If the option fails then you only have yourselves to blame if you haven’t organized a million letters and a million citizen march to the door of the US Attorney’s office.

I have not seen a response from US Attorney Taylor but that doesn’t mean he’s shut the door on bringing a quo warranto inquiry.  I certainly I have not seen a negative response from US Attorney Taylor. He has said nothing publicy either way, so why is everybody giving up on the possibility that our Constitution may be working as we speak?

Did you think US Attorney Taylor would simply make a shotgun decision on something this important?  Don’t you think a complete in depth study of quo warranto, the DC Code, and all possible case law would be necessary for the man to properly come to a decision?  That takes some time.

Furthermore, how many of you actually wrote to the man?  I told you that the prosecutor would need your protection – the protection of an intense public outcry -  in order for him do something this controversial.  Have you given the prosecutor your protection?  Have you written to him?

Three people have written to me and mentioned they have received their green return receipt requested cards proving that their letters were accepted by the US Attorney’s Office.  Three people. I’d be willing to bet that the total number of letters sent to US Attorney Taylor is less than 500 and probably much less than that.

I’ve written extensively on quo warranto and I’ve made the case that the statute is the only possible means by which the POTUS eligibility issue will ever be resolved.   But the people don’t seem to really care enough to contact the US Attorney… so why should the US Attorney believe that this nation will support a decision to challenge Obama?

Based upon the lack of public outcry and the vehement language of hatred used by so many people who comment on the Obama eligibility issue, if I were the US Attorney I’d probably conclude that these advocates are simply partisan instigators concerned with their own political views and not concerned with an objective concern for the Constitution and the nation at large.

If you don’t have the numbers, you won’t get the result you’re looking for.   It’s that simple.  Those who are advocating methods and tactics which violate the Constitution have not done everything in their power to use the Constitutional and legal methods available.  You are just as much an enemy of the Constitution as any other thug.

If every person who was troubled by Obama’s eligibility wrote a letter to US Attorney Taylor and got on the same page, perhaps there might be enough of a public outcry for the US Attorney to move on this issue.  But the forces are split up and divided.  Much of this has been intentional and many have been duped.

You flock to sensational muckrakers spewing emotional diatribes and irrelevant judicial maniacal madness… and you will get what you sow in the end.

The Georgia Citizens Grand Jury Must Be Condemned

I have received letters from the people who ran the citizens grand jury in Georgia, and while I appreciate their frustration in that our Government has failed to protect the Constitution by allowing a President to be sworn in who is not a “natural born citizen”, I do not agree that this citizens grand jury has any legal authority whatsoever to demand the removal of a sitting President or to even force the review of his qualifications.

The separation of powers in the Constitution has delegated that power to Congress who in turn enacted the District of Columbia Code provision for Quo Warranto.  Sections 16-3501, 16-3502, and 16-3503 are the only Constitutional means available to see the President removed or to even have him face an inquiry as to his eligibility.  (See parts 1, 2 and 3 of my legal brief on quo warranto.)

Furthermore, there is very disturbing language (thanks to Phil at The Right Side of Life for highlighting this today) used by this citizens grand jury which discusses the taking of property and suggests other violent means by which they intend to enforce their presentments.  This language is frightening and totally illegal:

“The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.”

That’s criminal insanity right there.  Have people lost their minds?

Let it be known that I condemn any such activity as described above.

You can’t protect the Constitution by destroying it.  Just because somebody may have become President who isn’t eligible does not give any citizen the right to take the law into their own hands and to form lynch mobs and confiscate property.  There is a Constitutional way to challenge the President, but this citizens grand jury manifesto is not it.

We the people are getting beat up by criminal political actions which subvert the Constitution.  If we are to fight back, we must do so within the boundaries of the Constitution.  This is because Constitutional criminals are more than happy to see citizens violating the Constitution.  They can enforce your crimes with law enforcement.  They can even put you on trial for issuing such language as that cited above.

But you can’t do the same to them.

You will be squashed like a bug.  Therefore you need to be smarter and more Constitutionally creative than they are.  Find the path within the Document or the USA is no more. A true enemy of the Constitution will claim victory if the only way you can stop their crimes is by doing more damage to the Constitution.  Either way, the Constitution is destroyed.  Try to see that for God’s sake.

Since the people who have brought this citizens grand jury have written to me and told me personally that my writing on the power of the citizens as grand jurors was their inspiration, I feel the need to disassociate myself from them and their objectives.

When I wrote of the subverted power of the Grand Jury as to bringing “presentments” in my articles;

- The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

- Scotus on the unique power of grand jurors

…I was not doing so in regard to the POTUS eligibility issue. In fact, the first article above was written by me back in 2005 and published at my previous blog.  This article had NOTHING to do with Obama’s eligibility.

We are governed by our Constitution, not common law.

My grand jury 5th amendment “power of presentment” articles were meant to educate people as to their power ONCE SWORN IN AS A FEDERAL GRAND JUROR in a federal court.

The articles weren’t meant to encourage citizens to form their own grand juries and prosecute at will. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution.  And I am a true believer in the Constitution.  Are you?

The Constitution provides in the 5th Amendment that a grand jury can return a “presentment” without the acquiescence of a Federal Prosecutor.  I have encouraged people who are sworn in on Federal Grand Juries to use this power to investigate Government crimes even when the Prosecutor has not led them to such crimes. This is the power I was speaking of, and I first wrote about it in 2005 with regard to Constitutional crimes of the Bush administration.

Imagine 25 grand jurors who really know their power sitting in a DC court room… The Government can’t indict without a grand jury so they must have a grand jury empanelled at all times.  If the citizens of this nation understood their true power, then once sworn in as grand jurors they could investigate ANY crime that was undertaken by Government.

THIS IS THE POWER I SPEAK OF.

Learn about it, spread it, use it or lose it. It’s a real power.

This citizens grand jury thing is not real.  It’s a dog and pony show and a certain distraction from the true education and true power available which will surely confuse the issue and make it easier for the Government to further subvert the true power we the people hold as grand jurors.

When I first read about the Georgia citizens grand jury I thought, “Well, the relief they seek is not Constitutional and since they read my blog they must know that quo warranto is the only Constitutional way to remove the President…so this will simply be an educational PR stunt to foster discussion of the eligibility issue.”

But I can’t agree with that anymore.

The language they’ve published about taking people’s property and “other” enforcement options is complete and utter criminal bullshit.

Any activity which subverts the Constitution is criminal to me.  I don’t care if it’s ineligible Presidential candidates or citizens who are frustrated thereby.

If this citizens grand jury is citing my writing as inspiration, then they’ve clearly misunderstood my writing.

Leo C. Donofrio

April 2, 2009

[Feel free to leave comments on this article.  But please understand that I am very busy right now and cannot promise I will have the time to moderate and post comments.]

Two Minute Warning; Vattel Decoded

[My interview tonight on The Chalice Show - 9:05 -11:00 EST - will be the last you're going to hear from me on this issue for some time.]

The case has been made as to the Constitutional process necessary to challenge President Obama’s qualifications for office.  I call him President because he is President – under our Constitution – unless and until the District Court for the District of Columbia finds him ineligible.  That is the only venue of review currently available under the law.

The case has also been thoroughly made that Obama is not a natural born citizen with regard to the presumption discussed in Marbury v. Madison by Chief Justice Marshall.  That case stands for the nullification of the argument that one becomes eligible to be President through 14th Amendment citizenship (if born in the US).  Chief Justice Marshall has spoken from the grave on this issue, and he holds that such a construction is “inadmissible”.

In parts 1, 2 and 3 of my quo warranto legal brief, I laid the case out for the various processes under the District of Columbia Code available to law enforcement officials as well as private plaintiffs and attorneys.  So far, not a single “eligibility advocate” has used the statute – the only national law which uses the word “usurper” in its very text.  As they scream usurper at Obama, they patently ignore the only statute empowered to remove him.  And yet the “donate” buttons keep getting pushed.  And those cases continue to be rightfully dismissed.

People deserve exactly what they settle for.

I am not a carnival barker or circus aficionado.  The law I write about is that of legal fact not fanciful fiction based on clumsy metaphorical wordplay meant to confuse.  When I write about the law, that writing is grounded in the Constitution, statutes and SCOTUS interpretations as precedent.  If the law makes it hard for me to find a path to justice, I do not go about blasting justice away for the sake of getting the result I want.

To commit blasphemy against the Constitution’s separation of powers would be a sin against justice.  True enemies of the Constitution care not if they destroy it by installing an ineligible president or if they destroy it by seeing him removed unconstitutionally.  If your ultimate intention is to destroy the Constitution, both results are a win for you.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

You can make a stand.  That’s what can be done.

United States Attorney Taylor appears to be a straight arrow.

- US Attorney Taylor stood up to Monica Goodling and caused her to be investigated when she improperly tried to bring political influence upon Taylor’s hiring of a certain US Attorney.

- US Attorney Taylor prosecuted Blackwater stating public outrage that Blackwater operatives had illegally fired on Iraqi civilians.  After they plead guilty to 14 counts of manslaughter Taylor said, “We are duty-bound to hold them accountable, as no one is above the law, even when our country is engaged in war…”

- US Attorney Taylor withdrew his US Attorney confirmation bid instead of playing politics when Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton opposed him.

- US Attorney Taylor recently raided the Office of Technology a week after the head of that office was appointed by Obama as Chief Information Officer.

Mr. Kundra has taken a leave of absence while that scandal plays out.  When the story first broke on March 12, I noticed some references to US Attorney Taylor having been in charge of the raid.  The next day, March 13, I released my open letter to US Attorney Taylor.  That evening I could not find anymore references to US Attorney Taylor’s involvement.  Was his name scrubbed from Google news searches?  The only reference I could find there was the actual Government press release.  Notice it’s on US Attorney Taylor’s letterhead.

- US Attorney Taylor’s Press Release concerning the office of Technology Raid

Only one news source covered the press release, and I found it on an obscure search engine.  The Imperial Valley News reprinted US Attorney Taylor’s press release.

ATTORNEY  GENERAL HOLDER SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF AS TO QUO WARRANTO REQUESTS.

While I don’t think AG HOLDER would be representing Obama in a quo warranto, since QW doesn’t challenge any official Government activity, I believe now that AG Holder does, in fact, have a conflict of interest.  If Obama is removed then – according to the precedent regarding Mr. Shields and Mr. Galatin in the Senate (see QW legal brief part 2) – the election would be void, Obama would be stricken from official POTUS history and it would be as if he were never president.  This would probably also void Obama’s appointments.  AG Holder could lose his job.  This creates a new conflict of interest issue.

MAKE A STAND.

Unless you make EVERY effort to be heard then you will never know if justice was at your fingertips.  How much do you believe in this issue?  Back in the 60’s when civil rights were being denied, the people came to Washington… a million man march.  The law was changed and history with it.  There is power available to you.  Stop being so defeated.  Stop depending on charlatans.  Use your mind.  Think for yourself.  Don’t believe Leo Donofrio.  Do your damn homework.  I have provided you with the research materials.  Use them.

If you don’t have the support of the people, the Government will not listen.  You need to assemble peacefully and be heard.  If you don’t have the numbers, you won’t be heard.  It’s that simple.  Go get the people.  Bring them to Washington DC.  Be heard.

Those who believe this issue needs to be resolved are being divided and surely will be conquered.  You may choose truth or you may choose lies.  The comments to each blog post here contain virtually every possible argument you will face.  And each has been dissected and destroyed by the full light of the truth written here.  You are intellectually armed with knowledge to go forward and be heard.

Don’t be distracted.

ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.

The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue.  I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution.  It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”.  A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.

It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.

Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced.  The difference is subtle, but so very important.  “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”.  It is a manner of acquiring citizenship.  And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.

Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Two different sentences.  Two different civil groups are being discussed.

Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”.  Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.

In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are.  Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”

In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states,  “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

There are natives and citizens, just as the header says.   All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens.  A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”.  He’s a native forever.  He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.

Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens.  They are the same.  According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.

He goes on as follows:

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen.  That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”.  It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”.  Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.

When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President.  But the framers did read his work.  And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen.  That is clear in the Constitution.  Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”.  He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.

Citizen = legal status

Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.

Vattel also wrote:

“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens.  Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age.  But nobody can renounce a fact of birth.  The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not.  The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.

And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States.  The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen.  Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”.  And to that distinction there can only be one effect:

ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.

According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous.  If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect.  According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.

President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whethe he was born in Hawaii or not.

FAREWELL.

I am not going to protest any longer.  As a Christian, I’m somewhat convinced this nation has been judged by the almighty and his fury may be descending as we speak.  Such fury appears to be in the form of Constitutional cancer.  I have prayed over my continuing role in this battle and the answer to those prayers said I am done here.  As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I place my faith not in any organized religion but in the words of the lamb and the voice of God.  Peace be with you.

Leo C. Donofrio

03.18.2009

[No comments to this article will be posted.  If you'd like to send a private message to me, then use the comment feature.  But no comments will be posted to this blog.]

SCOTUS Has No Original Jurisdiction To Issue A Writ of Quo Warranto re Obama; Legal presumption in favor of natural born citizen clause and effect

RADIO UPDATE: I will be on the Chalice show on PatriotsHeartNetwork.com Wed.  March 18 at 9:05 EST]

Before I address the legal facts of this headline, I want to address all of the other Presidential eligibility cases that went before SCOTUS  including my own.  It’s true that – technically – Donofrio v. Wells could still be pending if I chose to submit a full petition for writ of certiorari.  Many have written to me and asked why I haven’t resorted to that tactic.  The answer is fairly simple: my case is moot.

The same is true for Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, Lightfoot v. Bowen and the Berg cases, all of which asked for emergency stays or emergency injunctions to stop a candidate from becoming “president-elect” and later president.

Once my case stay application was denied, I had exhausted the only emergency procedure available to me and the US Supreme Court Rules would not have facilitated the resolution of a full petition before the candidate was sworn in as President (or become president-elect).

When Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts as President, our Constitutional separation of powers kicked in big time.  Because of the separation of powers enumerated in our Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has no ability to remove a sitting President.  Nowhere in the Document does it give the Supreme Court (or the judicial branch) any authority to remove a sitting President.

All of the eligibility law suits – brought before electoral college votes were counted in Congress – sought to challenge the qualifications of  candidate Obama to be President.  Once he graduated from “candidate Obama” to “President-elect Obama” and later “President Obama”, every single eligibility law suit pending before SCOTUS became moot.

Those actions are moot because SCOTUS has no authority to act on the relief requested in those law suits.  And SCOTUS knows this better than anybody else.

Full petitions or motions to reconsider filed in any of the eligibility suits that went to SCOTUS before Obama became President (including my own) now leave SCOTUS with only one possible course of  action thereto: a Supreme dog and pony show.  And I don’t think Chief Justice Roberts will be calling in the Westminster Kennel Club anytime soon.  Those cases are dead done and dusted.  Call the embalming squad.

POINT I: SCOTUS HAS NO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WRITS OF QUO WARRANTO.

Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution grants SCOTUS its authority as follows:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

There you have it.  SCOTUS only has original jurisdiction over cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, Consuls and where a State is a party to the law suit.  If the action is not in aid of their appellate jurisdiction, then that law suit cannot originate with the United States Supreme Court.  A quo warranto to determine POTUS eligibility brought directly to SCOTUS does not fall within their Constitutional authority.  [Thanks to reader "Lawyer" for her insights on this issue.]

SCOTUS can probably review a quo warranto case under the All Writs Act.  But such review is only available if it comes within their appellate jurisdiction.  Original jurisdiction cannot be invoked for writs of quo warranto and any attempt to institute a proceeding in quo warranto directly with SCOTUS should fail.  It would be a violation of the Constitution.

US Code Section 1651, aka “the all writs act”:

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

In the landmark SCOTUS case, Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court dealt with this exact issue, whether SCOTUS had original jurisdiction to entertain one of the extraordinary writs.  In that case, it was a writ of mandamus.  And SCOTUS held they did not have any authority to act under original jurisdiction to issue the writ:

The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present  case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

In the distribution of this power it is declared that ‘the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.’…

…If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction made in the constitution, is form without substance. (Emphasis added.)

SCOTUS cannot entertain any quo warranto brought directly to it.  They must wait for it to come on appeal.  Please take note of the statement above concerning the Constitution’s grant of Congressional authority to ordain and establish inferior courts.  It is this Congressional power coupled with the exclusive power given to Congress to remove a sitting President which was exercised by Congress within the very text of the District of Columbia Code’s quo warranto statute.

In that statute, Congress exclusively authorized the District Court of the District of Columbia with the power to hear cases challenging the eligibility of a sitting officer holding a United States national office located in the District of Columbia.

SCOTUS is constitutionally estopped from issuing a writ of quo warranto regarding Obama’s qualifications to be President if the action is brought directly to them.  Any attempt to do that should certainly be denied.  This is simply a legal fact.  Any attorney who brings such an action to SCOTUS directly will be doing terrible damage to the cause on account of the public relations disaster awaiting certain denial by SCOTUS.

POINT II: UNITED STATES LAW INCLUDES A PRESUMPTION THAT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE HAS A UNIQUE EFFECT OTHER THAN THAT OF A 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN.

Chief Justice Marshall (pictured above) delivered the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison.  His “form without substance” quote truly made me wonder what he would say about the natural born citizen clause.

As I thought about it, Chief Justice Marshall’s voice came to me right from the pages of that opinion and I realized suddenly that he did address the issue when he said:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

This must kill the argument that being “a 14th Amendment citizen” has the same effect on Presidential eligibility as being a “natural born citizen”.  If being a “citizen” had the same exact effect as being a “natural born citzen” then the clause would have no effect.  As stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “such a construction is inadmissible.”

Holy cow.  I just had one.  It’s more like the proverbial elephant in the room.

We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”.  It does not use the words “natural born citizen”.  And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US.  Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals.  The 14th Amendment certainly does not state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2  Section 1 Clause 5.

Those who are trying to read such an interpretation into the 14th Amendment do so at the ignorance of Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause without effect.  Such a construction is inadmissible.

Chief Justice Marshall provided only one exception to this rule, “such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it”. The words “natural born citizen” don’t require the clause to be construed to mean the same thing as the word “citizen”.  The exact opposite is true. The plain text of the Constitution shows that the framers allowed persons to become Senators and Representatives if they were “Citizens”, but as to the office of President they required a “natural born citizen”.  So the exception is irrelevant here.

Marbury v. Madison creates a standing presumption against any interpretation that would render the “natural born citizen” clause to have no effect independent of being a “citizen”. Chief Justice Marshall insisted such a construction is inadmissible.

INADMISSIBLE.

Inadmissible in this context means such an argument is not competent to be considered.  It’s essentially no different from the situation where a piece of evidence is excluded from trial.  It means you can’t even argue such a thing before the court.  Please think about this carefully.  This means any argument that a “14th Amendment citizen” is the same as a “natural born citizen” – for purposes of  effecting POTUS eligibility - is not competent to be considered by the court.

If the natural born citizen issue were ever heard on the merits, the court hearing the case must recognize that a presumption exists requiring the natural born citizen clause to have independent effect from all clauses which just refer to “citizen”.

Effect is the key.

What is the independent effect attributed to the “natural born citizen” clause?  The effect  is that just being a “citizen” isn’t enough to satisfy the requirement of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 which demands that the President of the United States be a “natural born citizen”.

This means that under current United States law, the “natural born citizen” clause is presumed to mean something other than a “14th Amendment citizen”.  And no other construction is even admissible.

You can take all the law review articles, emotional pleas claiming the natural born citizen clause is obsolete, the 14th Amendment arguments, Wong Kim Ark, and every main stream media barker, throw them before the SCOTUS altar, and make them kneel to Chief Justice Marshall and the framers.

SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, and it said the “natural born citizen” clause, being a clause directly written into the text of the Constitution, is presumed to have a unique and independent effect.

This is a point I have failed to make up until right now, so please forgive me for having not locked it down earlier.  But don’t spank me too hard since it appears to be an original argument.  It’s not a point I’ve seen published anywhere else.

Of course it’s well known that each Constitutional clause must have an independent effect.  But I don’t believe any other commentary has been published exposing this legal presumption in favor of the “natural born citizen” clause which also renders other arguments inadmissible.  By other arguments, I refer to all theories claiming that a 14th Amendment “citizen” born on US soil satisfies the Constitutional qualifications for President.

Regardless,  I must give credit to my sister (an ex prosecutor) for having brought the independent legal effect argument to my attention while Donofrio v. Wells was still pending with SCOTUS.  But without having Chief Justice Marshall’s brilliant opinion from Marbury v. Madison in front of me, I didn’t grasp the spectacular power of the presumption.  So I’ll leave you with those words once more.  Please give them your utmost concentration:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible…”

Leo C. Donofrio 03.16.2009

The Natural Born Citizen Blog Is Now Restricted

There exists a statute enacted by Congress wherein it exercised Constitutional authority to  challenge the credentials of, and/or remove, a sitting President found to be a usurper by failing to possess Article 2 Section 1 qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States.  The Statute exists in the District of Columbia Code, the same Code which includes the United States Constitution.

District of Columbia Code Section 16-3501 states:

§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.

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. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

This is the only statute in the entire body of United States federal law which specifically provides for removing all officers of the United States located in the District of Columbia, whether appointed or elected.  In Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17, Congress was given broad sweeping authority over every possible legal case involving offices of the Government of the United States located in the District of Columbia.  The office of President of the United States is in the District of Columbia and is certainly governed by the United States Constitution.  Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 states:

“The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…”

Due to a little thing called “SEPARATION OF POWERS”, Congress is the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President.  For a comprehensive review of this issue, please see my prior series of posts entitled, Quo Warranto Legal Brief: part 1, part 2, and part 3.

Since Barack Obama received the requisite number of electoral votes and has been sworn in as President, his eligibility for that office can only be challenged by Congress.  Congress, via the DC Code quo warranto statute, has exercised that authority to challenge the sitting President’s eligibility by authorizing exactly one specific court – the District Court for the District of Columbia – with the power of carrying out the ministerial task of holding a trial of fact concerning questions as to the President’s eligibility to hold the office of President.

Section 16-3544 of the DC Code provides for a jury trial as to all issues of fact on this issue of Presidential eligibility. The provisions of  16-3502 also provide the only means available under the law where an action to challenge President Obama’s qualifications can be instituted without the acquiescence of any Judge or Justice.  Every prior attempt to have this issue litigated has been squashed by a plethora of justices on grounds of personal standing, subject matter jurisdiction, or, as to SCOTUS, unknown reasons.  So the DC Code should be the center of attention for all concerned about POTUS eligibility questions.

While there are many law suits pending in a multiplicity of jurisdictions around the United States, not one of those law suits has availed itself of the District of Columbia Code’s  quo warranto statute, the only statute which specifically provides for a trial as to the issue of whether the President of the United States is eligible to the office of President.

Because all of these law suits are a distraction from the exclusive Constitutional means available to any new or pending litigant on this issue, I am restricting this blog’s content and all discussion therein to issues concerning the DC Code quo warranto statute and to issues concerning Constitutional qualifications for President.

I am doing this to keep the light shining on what I feel – as an attorney – is the very truth of the law.  I have worked hard to gain people’s faith in my legal analysis, and I’ve tried to keep the discussion of this blog pure and free from spin and sensation so as to educate my readers as to the cold hard facts of the law and to its limitations which we must abide by if we are to preserve our Constitution.

Moreover, I have never taken any donations for this effort and I never will.

From now on, I will not allow comments to be posted which mention the names of, or which identify in any way with, law suits and/or attorneys, who refuse to acknowledge the applicable authority of the DC Code quo warranto statute.  I wish the other attorneys no ill will.  I just don’t have faith in their tactics.

Open Letter To United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor

March 19, 2009

United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Taylor,

I am writing to make you aware of a brewing danger to members of our active military who have been influenced to join law suits challenging the eligibility of President Barack Obama as Commander In Chief.  I hope you will deem it proper to take appropriate action to protect our military and the nation from further damage.

Recently, 1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling, currently serving in Iraq, agreed to be a plaintiff in a pending law suit being brought on behalf of several active and retired military persons by California attorney, Orly Taitz.  Easterling agreed to sign a consent form for participation in this action.  Beside asking for a publicity photograph and donations, the consent form requests a signature below the following language:

Attn. Orly Taitz, Esq.
26302 La Paz, Ste. 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691

I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a PETITION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT whether Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia and possibly still citizen of Kenya, aka  BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS  QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT of the U.S or TO BE  COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the U.S. ARMED FORCES, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall) and I could conceivably be given unlawful orders by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, and by following such orders I can be subject to court martial. I further understand that additional arguments may be inserted into this lawsuit at the above-mentioned attorneys deem necessary.  Please attach a copy of your military ID card.

Signature: ______________________

As Attorney Orly Taitz is performing this service for her country Pro Bono, any amount that you can contribute will be most helpful. Please, attach your picture in the uniform, a short bio and a letter to fellow citizens and elected officials

[See attached consent form copied directly from the official Orly Taitz web site at http://defendourfreedoms.org/ATTENTIONALLMILITARYPERSONNEL.htm ]

On February 23, 2009, this story broke via World Net Daily with the following headline:

Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president’s orders   ‘As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this’

The story included the following text:

“As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States,” wrote Scott Easterling in a “to-whom-it-may-concern” letter. Obama “has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility,” Easterling wrote. “In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so.”

Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.

Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama’s eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don’t have standing to issue their challenge.

Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.

“Until Mr. Obama releases a ‘vault copy’ of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor,” his statement said.

Later in the article Easterling requests that other military get involved:

“I implore all service-members and citizens to contact their senators and representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced,” he wrote.

Taitz said Easterling is among the plaintiffs she is assembling for a new legal action over Obama’s eligibility. Others include a list of state lawmakers who also would be required in their official position to follow orders of the president.

“My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz’s lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action,” he said.

Easterling was “saluted” in a forum on Taitz’ website.

“Lt. Easterling, As a retired US Army SFC, I salute you sir as a true American patriot and hero! Thank you for your unselfish service to our country. It is rare to find someone today with such moral courage to do the right thing regardless of repercussions,” said one contributor.

The false headline was also republished to the Drudge Report that same day.

After reading the article, it appeared that, despite the sensational headline, Easterling had not defied any Presidential order.  I complained in my blog to World Net Daily and to Orly Taitz about the punitive danger they had put this soldier in.  Of course, the greater danger existed that other military might believe the headline and be influenced to defy orders as well.

By the next morning, the headline had been altered to read:

Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president’s authority ‘As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this’

( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89837 )

Neither World Net Daily nor Orly Taitz have ever officially addressed, or apologized for, the false headline published to millions of readers via bold faced caption at the Drudge Report which lasted for approximately twenty-four hours.

Yesterday, I was informed that the latest edition of The Globe Newspaper contains the following headline on the front page next to a picture of Officer Easterling holding a rifle:

“OBAMA MUTINY!

G.I. in Iraq rejects prez as Commander – In – Chief

Lawyer:Hundreds of troops set to follow”

http://www.globemagazine.com

The story includes gatefold coverage including the various statements made by Officer Easterling.  I was also quoted in the article to the effect that these statements and the law suit they represent are wrong, dangerous and unnecessary.

I have received numerous letters from active military – and/or the parents of soldiers – expressing gratitude for making this issue public and explaining the laws involved

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88, makes it an offense – punishable by up to one year in prison – to use “contemptuous language” against the President.  Other UCMJ provisions, along with various federal statutes, provide a plethora of charges under which persons may be convicted of corrupting the morale of the military and encouraging sedition or insubordination.  It’s alarming to consider our military, who take their Constitutional oath seriously, could suffer such disease in the relationship of command.  This is exactly what will happen as more join the Taitz law suit or others like it and similar news reports are released.

The viral effect this publicity will have has the potential to destroy the chain of command if allowed to fester without resolve.  And this brings me to why I’m writing to you, US Attorney Taylor.

I feel a sense of responsibility since an application for emergency stay I brought against the the New Jersey Secretary of State, Donofrio v. Wells, SCOTUS Docket # 08A407 – with regard to her failure to verify the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama – was the first eligibility suit that went all the way to full conference of the United States Supreme Court after having been referred to the full court by the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

I also feel responsible since back in late January of this year, I published a blog concerning “standing” to challenge Presidential eligibility wherein I suggested active military might hypothetically have standing as citizens but without breaking orders as soldiers.  Immediately after publishing this hypothetical discussion, I received messages from military personnel requesting I remove the blog.  They forwarded various statutory authority such as applicable provisions of the UCMJ which convinced me that our active military should not be involved in the eligibility issue at all.  I subsequently removed the blog post and have continued to strongly discourage active military participation in any eligibility law suits.  Recently, I have received messages from various active military asking my opinion, and I have consistently told them to refrain from joining any of these law suits.

I am sure you are aware of the numerous law suits which challenged President Obama as to whether he was a natural born citizen of the United States.  Other than my case, a few of those law suits also made it to conference before all nine justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Donofrio v Wells was featured on MSNBC, ABC, CNN, AP, The Washington Times and various other main stream media.  It was the publicity of this case and the others which grabbed the attention of soldiers like Officer Easterling since the issues were never decided on the merits as each case was rejected on grounds of standing, or, as to SCOTUS, simply denied full review with no comment.

As long as the issues are left open to wreak havoc, there is no way to foresee or contain the myriad of damage now pending before the nation.  The Officer Easterling saga is certainly alarming considering Barack Obama has only held the office of President for less than two months.

The core legal issue of my case against the New Jersey Secretary of State concerned the fact that President Obama’s father was a native of Kenya – but a citizen of Great Britain via the British Nationality Act of 1948 – at the time of President Obama’s birth.  Obama Sr. never became – or applied to be -  a US citizen.  President Obama, at his web site “Fightthesmears.com” admits his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

The legal question I asked the court to decide was whether a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be considered a natural “born” citizen of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of our Constitution.  The question remains unanswered in any United States court.

Most of the other cases which worked their way through various state and federal courts concerned whether Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii.  At his web site, Obama posted a photocopy of a Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii and had it verified by a private website called “factcheck.org”.  This was his response to all parties requesting proof he was actually born in Hawaii.  The audacity of this stunt generated a rush of litigation to have Obama’s credentials verified.  Of course, while there is no Constitutional requirement for a birth certificate to be tendered, ordinary people could not understand why Obama was fighting so hard to prevent anyone from seeing his genuine documents apparently on file in Hawaii.  It was this attitude of defiance which stimulated citizens across the nation – who are required to present an original birth certificate to any number of Government agencies – to institute litigation challenging Obama’s eligibility.

I do not write to you today to convince you that President Obama is not eligible to the office of President.

I write to convince you that having his title to office cleared of all doubt is in the best interest of the nation at large and specifically the military chain of command.  Since you are the main law enforcement officer charged with enforcing the District of Columbia Code, and since you are listed in 16-3502 as one of only two people who may institute a proceeding – upon their own motion – in quo warranto to investigate any United States public office holder’s qualifications if the office concerned is within the District of Columbia.  I respectfully request that you bring such an action before the District Court for the District of Columbia as soon as possible.

The Code provides – at 16-3544 – for a jury trial. I respectfully submit that this is the best possible way to settle the fact issue as to whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.  As to the legal issue of whether he is a natural born citizen, even if born in Hawaii, the Judicial branch has been charged with the power to interpret exactly what those words mean.

I have done extensive research on the quo warranto statute and all possible Constitutional issues which may arise from its use as to a sitting President.  The Congressional enactment of the DC Code’s quo warranto statute reflects the authority of Congress as the only branch which may remove the President.  I have published the research at my blog.

The URL for my blog is:

http:naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com .  (See Quo Warranto Legal Brief, parts 1-3).

The most important aspect of this research, as it may affect your decision to act, comes from the seminal US Supreme Court decision that interpreted the District of Columbia quo warranto statute, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546 (1915) wherein the court stated:

“The District Code… permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia. By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”

Please sir, nothing could be more proper for the benefit of the nation than having this issue settled.  Under 16 – 3502, only the “United States attorney” and/or the “US Attorney General” have the authority, without requesting leave of the court, to institute this action.  Under the holding in Newman, it requires no belief on your part that President Obama is actually ineligible.  The US Supreme Court holding in Newman only requires that you “deem it proper” out of a “sense of official responsibility”.

In order to put an end to the bottomless pit of pending litigation, whether in direct attacks by quo warranto, or via collateral attacks – based on eligibility of office challenges – as described and allowed by the DC Court of Appeals decision in Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), quo warranto appears both proper and necessary.

The nation and the military cannot have the chain of command subject to the rot of insubordination by multiple plaintiffs on a case by case basis each challenging specific orders as they arise.  The floodgate of litigation will flow too heavily for certain containment.

However, the issue could be settled in one single quo warranto proceeding brought in the proper court by the proper officials.  I strongly urge you and Attorney General Holder to act.  I am forwarding to Attorney General Holder this same letter.

THREE IMPORTANT ISSUES

I offer the following two points regarding the natural born citizen legal issue to prove that there is convincing evidence, by way of authority and precedent, for citizens to be concerned that the Constitution has been circumvented by Obama’s holding office regardless of whether he was born in the United States.  I do not expect to sway you to act on the basis of these points.  I simply hope that you will see that, despite media attempts to paint all questions as to Obama’s eligibility as conspiracy theories, the core issue is not a conspiracy theory.  It is a question of legal interpretation never decided by any court of law.

POINT I: REGARDING MARBURY v. MADISON

The argument most often tendered to support the position that Obama is eligible to be President (assuming he was born in Hawaii) suggests that any person who – by virtue of being born on US soil – becomes a US citizen would therefore be qualified to hold the offie of President.  However, this argument would not even be competent for judicial consideration according to the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison wherein Marshall stated:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

If being a “citizen” had the same exact effect as being a “natural born citizen” then the Article 2 Section 1 natural born citizen clause would be rendered superfluous and would have no effect.  As stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “such a construction is inadmissible.”

Prior to Obama’s taking office, no post grandfather clause President or Vice President had ever openly held office after having been born subject to the jurisdiction of another nation’s laws.  The following two points are an introduction to the great body of authority which touches the issue, but they are by no means exhaustive.

POINT II: Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House of Representatives on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

The 14th Amendment was interpreted by Justice Horace Gray for the holding of the US Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-102(1884), as follows:

“The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other…Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government…” (Emphasis added.)

Fourteen years later, Justice Horace Gray did a complete about face on this issue in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) although the holding in the Elk case was not reversed.  Regardless, the direct holding in Wong Kim Ark was restricted to the children of foreign parents permanently domiciled in the United States.  Barack Obama Sr. was never permanently domiciled in the United States.  I urge you to read both decisions in light of the following recent historical discovery.

POINT III:  The recent historical revelation that Chester Arthur was a usurper to the office of President.

Chester Arthur faced an identical scandal as Barack Obama when Arthur ran for Vice President.  It was alleged he had been born in Canada or Ireland and that he was a British subject at birth and therefore wasn’t eligible to be President.  Recently, my research team discovered, via the official New York State naturalization record of Chester Arthur’s father – available at the Library of Congress – that his father did not become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur was born.   So, at the time of his birth, Chester Arthur was a British subject due to his father’s heritage and failure to be naturalized before Chester Arthur was born even though history has proved Chester Arthur was actually born in Vermont.

Our research also proved that Chester Arthur actively concealed this fact by blatantly lying about his parental heritage in various interviews with the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper at the time he was running for VP.  (See articles at my blog.)

This is an important revelation because it establishes that Barack Obama is the first President in our national history who – at the time of his birth – was openly subject to and governed by the laws of another nation.  The issue which needs to be heard in court is whether such a person’s citizenship will be considered “natural born” for the rest of our nation’s history.

Allowing this issue to avoid judicial interpretation will forever raise questions to President Obama’s title to office, and it will set a precedent that two generations of citizenship (and loyalty) are no longer required before one can become President and Commander in Chief.

It’s important to note that Justice Horace Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur and Gray’s mysterious and complete about face from Elk to Wong Kim Ark must be re-examined in the light of revelations concerning Chester Arthur’s secret since Wong Kim Ark appears to sanitize, for history, the illegitimacy of Chester Arthur as President, the man who appointed Justice Horace Gray to the United States Supreme Court.

Regardless, I must reiterate that I am not writing to convince you to take a position as to whether President Obama is actually eligible for the office of President.  I am writing to beg that you bring an action in quo warranto so that the issue will be resolved once and for all which must be in the best interest of the nation.

Very Truly Yours,

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

[The above letter is being sent via certified mail and e mail to Jeffrey Taylor, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.  The same letter will also be sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.]

[Warning: WordPress has some kind of auto generated link system which is linking to some wacky stuff. I'm trying to fix it.  I suggest you do not follow any auto generated links to content not included in my blog posts. ]

QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: Part 3 STANDING-TRIAL BY JURY- HISTORY OF STATUTE – SEPARATION OF POWERS Cont.

[CORRECTIONS struck out below and in purple. 03.11.09]

[UPCOMING RADIO INTERVIEWS]

- Wed. March 11, 3:05 (East coast time) Joyce Kaufman show, WFTL 850AM Ft. Lauderdale/Miami

- Wed. March 11, 9:00 (East coast time) Solutions Not Politics with Devvy Kidd

- Thurs. March 12, 9:05 (East coast time) The Crystal Chalice show

——————————————————————————————–

The following points contain the most important issues as to federal quo warranto actions brought under the District of Columbia Code.

1. SCOTUS IS THE WRONG VENUE TO INITIATE AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

The District of Columbia Code, Title 16, Chapter 35 (Quo Warranto) Subchapter III states:

§ 16-3544. Pleading; jury trial.

In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead “not guilty” as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Emphasis added.)

The quo warranto statute allows a jury trial on “issues of fact”.   Whether Obama was born in Hawaii is an issue of fact.  Whoever institutes a proceeding pursuant to the statute may request a jury trial and one must be granted.  The judge could not refuse.

But if the case is brought to SCOTUS before it’s brought to the District Court of the District of Columbia, and if SCOTUS were to accept the case, you’re never going to have a jury trial.

Any quo warranto proceeding should go before the DC District Court as follows:

a.  a determination would have to be made, as a matter of fact, as to whether Obama was born in the US/Hawaii.

b. if the jury’s verdict is that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, then the legal question is easy: he’s not a natural born citizen.  please take note that the issue wouldn’t be whether the online COLB is genuine, the issue is whether Obama was born in Hawaii and any COLB or other document would only be considered as a piece of evidence for the jury to consider.

c.  if the jury’s verdict is that Obama was born in Hawaii, then the next issue is a more complex judicial question.  the District Court would have to make a legal determination as to the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Congress has absolutely no power to “interpret” clauses of the Constitution.  That would be a violation of the separation of powers.  Only the judicial branch could make such a determination. Congress properly assigned the issue to the District Court.

While Congress has the power to remove the President under the Constitution, they don’t have the power to interpret the Constitution.  The judicial branch must do that.

As to issues of fact, ie:

- how long a person is a citizen of the US

- how old a person is

- where a person is born

…these qualifications for office are matters of fact which Congress properly recognized were best left to a trier of fact and therefore a trial by jury is statutorily allowed.

The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of Congress.

Only the judicial branch can interpret the laws of this nation.

Congress didn’t delegate the authority to remove the President…they exercised that authority.  (My previous explanation was not correct.  I said they delegated their authority but that was a poor choice of words.  Please forgive me.)  Congress exercised their authority by allowing for the removal of the President.

Under the statute, the DC District Court must follow the law enacted by Congress.  Congress has deemed that if an action is instituted properly, the court then conducts a trial as to all relevant facts.  After the facts are determined, the court is empowered under the Constitution, to interpret the law in light of the facts.

JURY TRIAL.  Think about that.

SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.

GOD FORBID SCOTUS WOULD EVER JUMP IN AND TRY TO WRANGLE THIS CASE FROM A DISTRICT COURT JURY.

2.  STANDING UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE TO INSTITUTE A FEDERAL QUO WARRANTO ACTION

a. STANDING OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

The DC code allows three different levels of standing to “institute” a quo warranto action.  As to private plaintiffs, SCOTUS noted – in Newman at 538 – that Congress “has placed obstacles” in the way.  But as to the “Attorney General” or the “United States attorney”, who act in the name of the United States, the statute makes it very simple for an action to be instituted.  It says:

“The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion…”

SCOTUS in Newman at 546 has interpreted the statute to give wide discretion to these officials:

“By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”

“IN ANY CASE THEY DEEM PROPER.”

- There is no qualification that there be a certain amount of evidence one way or the other.

- There is no qualification that the officials must consider public opinion or political party affiliation.

- There is no “standing” to prove.  If your title is US Attorney General or United States attorney, you have standing.

- There is no need to consult with Congress because, as SCOTUS noted in their opinion, Congress has already acted on the issue by enacting the quo warranto statute.

All that is required is that the official deems a quo warranto statute proper.  His discretion is unassailable judicially.

WHY SHOULD THESE OFFICIALS DEEM QUO WARRANTO PROPER?

The short answer is that the action is proper to settle title to the office of President for the good of the nation.

Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue.  And like the waters over New Orleans levees, this floodgate has the ability to wreak havoc on our nation.

- Active military officers have openly stated that the so called Commander In Chief is an “imposter” and a “usurper”.  These men have consented to be plaintiffs in eligibility law suits.  Should this trend spread, it has the power to divide our forces and nation.

- Under the holding in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officer’s doctrine does not prohibit “collateral attacks” of official actions based upon a public officer’s lack of eligibility.  These are not quo warranto suits to remove the official, they are civil suits to challenge a specific action of that official.

In the Andrade case, the plaintiffs were Government employees who lost their jobs to “reduction in force” ordinances which cut whole departments from the Government budget.  The plaintiffs sued alleging those who did the cutting were not Constitutionally qualified to make such decisions in that their appointments violated the appointments clause of the US Constitution.

The DC District Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing other than to bring a “direct attack” in quo warranto to remove the alleged usurper.  But the DC Court of Appeals reversed and said the plaintiffs, who had suffered real injuries, could bring such an action on a case by case basis if they could prove their injury in fact (being fired) was caused by a Government official who was not eligible to serve.

They opened the door to a floodgate of litigation by an incredibly large field of possible plaintiffs who might challenge every single official action of the Obama administration on the basis that he isn’t eligible.

- Furthermore, there is a tenet of Government that requires there be a certainty to the official actions taken in the name of the United States.  No certainty is possible when millions of US citizens, including active military, are concerned that Obama’s credentials were not verified in the same way all citizens must verify their identity for the most simple things in life like getting a drivers license or passport.  It smacks of imperial coronation when a Government of, by and for the people are not entitled to know that the commander in chief must submit to the same levels of identity proof as the citizens.

Regardless of whether one believes Obama’s online COLB is real, no citizen can tell the Government to check a web site for their birth certificate rather than bring it in to the DMV or send it to the federal Government for a passport.  You have to actually mail your BC in to them if you don’t bring it in person.

I recognize that the Constitution does not require a birth certificate as a qualification, but that’s not the issue anymore.

The issue is whether the Attorney General and/or a United States attorney deems it proper for Obama to provide the same proof of identity as ordinary citizens in order to avoid FORESEEABLE complications which are destined to rot public faith.

We need to put aside whatever prejudices we have as to the eligibility and plead for now for the issue to be resolved as opposed to pleading what we believe the outcome of any such action should be.

I have stated over and again on numerous radio programs that I do not believe any private plaintiff has standing to demand to see Obama’s records of birth or any other personal records.  These plaintiffs are appealing to emotions and not rational legal considerations.  Obama should not bend to the will of those who have no legal authority to command him.  I said this over and over and over again.  But I was grouped in with these other attorneys whose theories I take great issue with.

We are governed by laws.  And there is no law which allows a private person to demand to see Obama’s birth certificate or college records.  It may seem like a good idea, but last time I checked the Constitution, neither are required to be President.

However, the United States attorney, the Attorney General and the District Court for the District of Columbia do have authority to command Obama to prove his credentials.  And they ought to exercise that authority for the good of the nation, especially our military.

I fail to see any difficulty in establishing non-partisan compliance with the SCOTUS holding in Newman that these officials may bring a quo warranto if they simply “deem it proper” to do so.

That decision is not subject to review.

There is a public policy behind this which makes alot of sense.  Obama ought to encourage these officials to institute an action in quo warranto for the good of the nation and for the good of his own legacy.

IMPORTANT:

The best possible candidates I can think of who should request the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion are Retired Military officers who understand the absolute need for the President’s title to office not to be encumbered by doubt.  Retired military can band together to request that these Government attorneys “deem it proper” to protect the active military from all of the swirling dangers their involvement in a political action as to POTUS eligibility would bring.  Such a request shows no disrespect, but rather recognizes the actual risk now being taken by soldiers getting involved with various law suits.  The retired military would not be making a case for or against Obama’s eligibility, but rather they would simply be asking that the issue be resolved one way or the other under the applicable statute.  Again, keep in mind that the statute doesn’t require anything more than that the US attorney or the Attorney General “deem it proper.”

Please don’t confuse this with asking these retired military to be plaintiffs.  That’s not what I’m suggesting.  I’m suggesting that retired military officers are the best possible group who might be able to influence the US attorney or the Attorney General in making the decision to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion with no private plaintiffs.

Another interesting question is whether any of the 94 United States attorneys may institute the proceeding in quo warranto…[Ed.  I have reconsidered the discussion on this issue and as of 03.011.2009 struck it from the brief.   16-3502 applies exclusively to the US Attorney General and to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.  I believe that's the most accurate intention of the statute.]

b. Standing of “third persons” vs “interested persons”.

16-3502 states:

The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.

16-3503 states:

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued.

The terms “third person” and “interested person” have been interpreted by SCOTUS  in the Newman case as follows:

The Code provides that a “third person” — the equivalent of “any person” — may institute the proceedings only after he had secured the consent of the law officers and the court. It makes a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person,” and provides that, if the Attorney General refuses to give his consent to the latter, such “interested person” may secure the right to use the name of the government by satisfying the… Court of the District that his reasons for applying therefore are sufficient in law…

Considering the ancient policy of the law and the restrictions imposed by the language of the Code, it is evident that, in passing this statute, Congress used the words “third person” in the sense of “any person,” and the phrase “person interested” in the sense in which it so often occurs in the law…The interest which will justify such a proceeding by a private individual must be more than that of another taxpayer. It must be “an interest in the office itself, and must be peculiar to the applicant”…The language of the Code, supported by the history and policy of the law, sustains the proposition that one who has no interest except that which is common to every other member of the public is not entitled to use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.

For if the allegations in such a suit by a private citizen set out any cause of action at all, it shows on its face that it was a cause of action belonging to the whole body of the public, and which therefore should be prosecuted by the public representative.

The rule is the same regardless whether the office is elective or appointive. For in neither case is there any intent to permit the public office to be the subject matter of private litigation at the instance of one who has no interest therein which differs from that of every other member of the public. The claim that this construction makes the statute nugatory cannot be sustained, for the statute, as already pointed out, gives a person who has been unlawfully ousted before his term expired a right, on proof of interest, to the issuance of the writ, and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.

In Newman, there was a jury trial and the jury held that the public officer didn’t meet the requirements of office.  The District Court ousted him based on the jury’s verdict.  The DC Court of Appeals affirmed.  But SCOTUS reversed by stating the jury verdict was nullified because the plaintiff wasn’t an “interested party” and so he didn’t have standing.  Since the official Government attorneys refused consent to bring the action, the plaintiff couldn’t just be a “third person”, the plaintiff had to be an “interested person.”

SCOTUS held that interested persons would include persons ousted from the office they are challenging.  But they left the door open with that last line, “…and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.” (Emphasis added.)

THREE WAYS TO BRING QUO WARRANTO

1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion – which is the best way this could happen.  No leave of the court need be requested.  There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.

2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as “third persons” and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States.  If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well.  And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then “interested persons” may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto.  But standing will be – according to SCOTUS in Newman – restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

I don’t know exactly what SCOTUS meant by that vague reference to “civil service laws”, but I would assume they are making reference to Government employees, and perhaps this could also apply to recipients of civil service benefits.  I don’t believe the military are party to the civil service laws, so I don’t see them as being the plaintiffs with the best possible standing.

The holding in Newman is certainly ripe for a challenge, but care ought to be made to find the best possible plaintiffs who might qualify as “interested persons”.

The best private plaintiffs who might have standing to institute an action in quo warranto  as “interested  persons” would be those persons with an injury in fact caused by an official action of POTUS as it relates to the civil service laws.

Active military may appear to have the best standing based on a purely emotional reading of the term “interested persons”, but according to the controlling SCOTUS decision in Newman, the military aren’t the best subset of “third person” plaintiffs.

This is thes best shot, not the military.  They do enough for us to at least deserve civilians with better standing exhaust every possible Constitutional means available before subjecting them to any number of possible court martials.

3. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TITLE 16 CHAPTER 35 (Quo Warranto) OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE.

Chapter 35 is entitled “QUO WARRANTO”.  Subchapter I is entitled “Actions Against Officers of the United States.” Subchapter II is entitled “Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia“. Please note that the original DC quo warranto statute was first enacted in 1901.  While SCOTUS interpreted that statute as controlling national officers, Congress modified the statute in 1963 to its current form which erases any possible doubt that the statute applies to all Officers of the United States.

Furthermore, the District of Columbia Code is federal law.  It’s enacted by Congress and the actual United States Constitution is included in the District of Columbia code.  I have seen the most erroneous comments online wherein it has been argued that a “local DC code is not federal law”.  Besides the ultimate federal law – the Constitution – being placed directly in the DC code, SCOTUS has stated – in the seminal quo warranto DC code case, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) – that the District Code applies to all…

“…actions in quo warranto instituted by authorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are general laws of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of Columbia…”

I must reiterate that the code’s text does not provide any exceptions for any public office, not even POTUS.

In UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 248 F.2d 804 (1957), the US court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, provided an on point discussion of quo warranto in the district courts:

There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C. Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions.

The first statute mentioned above dealt specifically with quo warranto actions which arose out of 14th amendment issues where citizens were refused the right to vote.  Under this statute, all US district courts could hear quo warranto cases.  But this statute was repealed in 1911 and so the only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code.  And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.

All discussion of quo warranto actions brought in other “district courts” of the US has been rendered moot.  Unfortunately, I have seen irrelevant analysis of that repealed statute applied to the DC Code by various confused commentators online.  In a quote taken from a legal treatise called Treatise on Federal Practice by Roger Foster, written in 1921, he states:

“The better opinion is that the District Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction to grant the writ of quo warranto only when specifically authorized by statute; and that no writ of quo warranto can issue from them to try the title to the office of President of the United States.”

At first glance it appears this “better opinion” might be a problem.  I don’t know where he derives this “better opinion” from, certainly not the federal courts or SCOTUS because no such case law exists.  It’s probably a reflection of a common erroneous assumption that the Constitution only allows removal of a sitting President by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.  We put that rumour to rest in part 2 of this brief – the Constitution does not say that anywhere in the Document’s text.

When you continue with the Foster quote, it states:

The District Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of all suits to recover possession of any office…authorized by law to be brought, wherein it appears that the sole question touching the title to such office arises out of the denial of the right to vote to any citizen…” (Emphasis added.)

This analysis is specifically directed to the repealed statute regarding quo warranto wherein “the sole issue” is deprivation of 14th amendment voting rights.   It has nothing to do with the District of Columbia Code wherein quo warranto may be brought against any “public office of the United States” with regard to anyone found to be a usurper for any legal breach.

The statute Foster refers to has been repealed.  It didn’t deal with Constitutional qualifications for office.  Also notice that the comment says “District Courts”.  This is obsolete.  District Courts – other than the DC district court – have been stripped of authority to hear any quo warranto cases.

CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia.  No public office, ie POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF – Part 2: The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment

[TYPO UPDATE: The first federal Quo Warranto statute was enacted in 1878 not 1787.]

[UPDATE 9:16 AM: 03.06.09:  EXHIIBITS 7-9 were added below.  And they are heavyweights.]

[UPDATE: 12:30 AM: 03.06.09  EXHIBIT 6 was added below . ]

The issue of whether the President can be removed from office other than by impeachment is the single most important question presented with regard to challenging the eligibility of a sitting President. This section of the brief contains important new information supporting the conclusions discussed in Part 1 of this legal brief .

Please understand that if the Constitution limits Congressional power to remove the President to only cases of impeachment then there is no Constitutional mechanism available to remove a President who is proved to be a usurper.  And if that’s true, then the federal quo warranto statute doesn’t have the power to remove a sitting President… even if it was proved beyond any doubt he was ineligible. 

The best dream team of lawyers you can draft may bring all the law suits they like for the best possible reasons in favor of the most perfectly possible plaintiffs with undeniable standing as to injury in fact and causality, but the courts do not have the authority – under the Constitution – to remove a sitting President.  Those law suits will fail and they should fail.

In order to protect the Constitution, we must not subvert the separation of powers.

If it can’t be done by quo warranto, then it can’t be done at all. Why?

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.

If we are going to challenge eligibility to protect the Constitution, then we certainly cannot do an end around the separation of powers.  I have recognized this from the outset and that’s why I tried to have the eligibility issue litigated prior to election day and then again prior to the electoral college meeting.  After the electoral college met and cast its votes for Obama, he went from being an ordinary candidate to being the President-elect.

That metamorphosis has important Constitutional consequences which cannot be ignored.  The Constitution provides that once we have a President-elect, the eligibility of that person can be challenged by Congress.  The political question doctrine kicks in at that point and the ability of any other branch to challenge for POTUS eligibility is probably nullified.  And once the President-elect is sworn in and assumes office, the Constitutional separation of powers certainly controls the issue.

Recall, Congress didn’t challenge Obama’s eligibility before he was sworn in, so those provisions are now moot.   And once a person is sworn in as President, the Constitution then provides specific means for removing the President from office, none of which grant such power to the Judicial Branch.  Now please consider the following two points:

1.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President.

Those who are currently petitioning the Judicial branch to challenge Presidential eligibility are seeking to subvert the Constitution.

They will argue Obama isn’t legally President and so therefore the Constitutional separation of powers can be ignored.  Should a court ever accept that theory, you will have the recipe for civil war, and you will be doing more damage to the nation than you can even imagine.  Protest all you like, but the US Government recognizes his authority.

Furthermore, United States Courts all the way up to SCOTUS have refused to get involved, and this was the case before Obama was sworn in when the Judicial Branch actually did have the power to adjudicate the eligibility issue.  They punted.  Fact.

Now that Obama has taken the office of President and is officially recognized as President, no court is going to suddenly take a leap around the separation of powers by agreeing the Constitution doesn’t apply to Obama as President.  That will never happen.

Let that sink in because it’s true.

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.

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.

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?

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.  We will return to this shortly.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

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. And I would never further damage it by aiding a new Constitutional crisis which might help to bring our Republic down.

We must respect the separation of powers or we will lose the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.

The separation of powers argument will be the proper undoing of every single POTUS eligibility law suit running through the courts at this moment in time.  They will all fail.  And they should, because for any of them to prevail, the separation of powers would be violated.

Even in law suits where federal courts have been petitioned to request Congress investigate -  by way of mandamus – Obama’s eligibility (as opposed to seeking removal), the courts will dismiss on the basis of separation of powers limitations and/or subject matter jurisdiction, even if the plaintiffs were found to have passed the difficult standing tests (and that’s not going to happen either).

While I respect the litigants and the efforts they have made, I take issue with some of the tactics employed and I’m also not that impressed with many of the pleadings.  I hope that, by publishing this brief, I will correct some of the previous errors and provide the public at large with the best possible education so that proper pressure can be applied to authorized Government officials.  Knowledge is power.  I seek to empower you.

Should those officials not respond, I also hope the following will act as a template for any attorneys who may wish to pursue a quo warranto petition.  This should save time and resources.

I have reached out to some of the attorneys who impressed me, but none have brought a law suit which can succeed in light of the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.

IS THERE A CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION?

It appears there is a Constitutionally viable method available for the eligibility issue to be litigated which does not violate the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.  I strongly believe the federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutionally viable means by which a sitting President can be removed from office if found to be a usurper, whether such usurpation is intentional or unintentional.  Full details and analysis below, but first let’s discuss the following:

REVIEW OF CURRENT QUO WARRANTO ACTIVITY

As far as I can tell, only one attorney has filed for an actual quo warranto claim at this point in time.  Unfortunately, that attempt will fail as it was brought on behalf of private plaintiffs.  As you will see below, any action in quo warranto must be brought on behalf of the United States.  The attorney needed to first petition the Attorney General or US Attorney in DC to institute an action in quo warranto.  Additionally, that same action was brought in the wrong venue.  According to the statute, a quo warranto action to challenge the eligibility of a United States officer – whether elected or appointed – can only be brought in the District Court of the District of Columbia.

Another attorney has sent a “pre-litigation” letter to Attorney General Holder.  But the statute requires a “verified petition” be forwarded to the Attorney General and/or the US Attorney requesting consent plaintiffs be allowed to institute a quo warranto action in the name of the United States.  No such petition has been filed.

This “letter” sent to AG Holder insists he recuse himself due to an alleged conflict of interest since the Attorney General’s office is the designated defender of the President.  But that is only true as to the President’s official actions.  A Quo warranto dispute is not related to official activity of the President’s office.   It relates to whether the President is eligible to hold the office and that is not an “official action” undertaken by the President.  The statute defines quo warranto as a civil action.  I believe the President would have to hire private counsel to defend him.

So, there’s probably no legal conflict of interest requiring Eric Holder to recuse himself.   Any conflict of interest which exists is probably limited to the personal gratitude AG Holder may have for Obama since he appointed him.  But that’s not the type of conflict which requires recusal.  For example, a Supreme Court Justice does not have to recuse himself in a dispute involving the President who appointed him.

It’s not fair to suggest AG holder won’t do his job because he owes personal allegiance to Obama.  I believe in fighting a fair fight even if others fight unfairly against me.  It’s only fair that the man be given the chance to do the right thing.  Furthermore, no verified petition has even been forwarded to the Attorney General’s office.

The federal quo warranto statute provides that the “United States attorney” may institute an action in quo warranto on his own motion.  The US Attorney for the District of Columbia is Jeffrey Taylor.  He was appointed to that position in 2006 by the Bush administration and certainly has no conflict of interest.  I am not aware of anybody who has contacted US Attorney Taylor in this regard.  It will only take one of those officials to bring the action, not both.

WHY EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE BY THE PUBLIC TO PRESSURE AG HOLDER AND US ATTORNEY TAYLOR TO INSTITUTE – ON THEIR OWN MOTION – AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT EX RELATOR PLAINTIFFS

While arguments about whether the military make the best plaintiffs have been raging, the simple truth is that a quo warranto case with the best chance of success ought to be initiated with no private plaintiffs at all.  The federal quo warranto statute shows a preference for cases brought on behalf of the United States by the Attorney General or the US Attorney.  And until respectful pressure is applied to those officials, the nation is deprived of the most perfect avenue to justice.  Until this course of action is exhausted, I pray that all private attorneys briefly delay requesting consent from these officials while an effort is made to persuade them that it’s in the best interests of the nation for them to proceed on their own motion.

This is not a private issue.  The controversy is raging.  Nobody can deny that.  AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor need to consider that the citizens, the military, the Government – as well as Obama himself – will all be better off once clear title to the office is established.

§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.

The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application…

In Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546 (1915), the Supreme Court interpreted the role of the AG and US attorney as follows:

The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. It permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia.  By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper. But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such “third person” must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.

The modern federal statute is virtually identical except the US attorney has been included with the Attorney General as the two officials who may “at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility… institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”

Such an action is so proper that despite which side of this argument you fall on, it should be obvious the nation would be better served by having this issue settled once and for all in open court… but not in the name of private plaintiffs who can be so easily painted as partisan.

If either official bring an action in quo warranto upon their own motion, such an action is brought on behalf of the United States and no leave of the court is necessary.

Comparatively, if a private attorney petitions these officials to allow them to bring suit in the name of the US “ex relator” then even if one of the two officials gives their consent, leave of the court must be requested and if denied, that’s it.  The matter is done.  One could then appeal to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS is the last resort, not the first.  There’s no need to disrespect the statute and the resources of the court by going straight to SCOTUS.  That’s just sensational, not wise.

Another interesting point to consider is that while the predecessor statute only named the District Attorney for the District of Columbia – the modern statute which controls quo warranto as to national officers mentions both the Attorney General and the “United States attorney”.  As written, it’s possible any US attorney might be eligible to institute such a quo warranto action.  Notice that in the statute – “attorney” isn’t capitalized in either 16-3502 or 16-3503 when the “United States attorney” is mentioned. Of course, US Attorney Taylor is certainly authorized, but this needs further research.

Assuming AG Holder or US Attorney Taylor were to institute an action in quo warranto, the District Court might attempt to avoid a hearing on the merits (which every court of the nation seems hell bent upon avoiding) by claiming that the federal quo warranto statute – if applied to the President – would violate the Constitutional separation of powers and that they are of the opinion that the Constitution only allows removal of the President for impeachment.

If that argument can be overcome then, due to the obvious public policy benefits inherent in establishing that the President has a clear title to the office of President, there should be no obstacle preventing at least one of the two officials charged with the authority to act in the name of the United States to bring this issue to the court for the benefit of the nation.

THE CONSTITUTION HAS PROVIDED CONGRESS WITH THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE IN CASES OTHER THAN IMPEACHMENT.

Evidence of this power is directly written into the Constitution.  The most obvious section is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 which states in full:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Unlike in Wikipedia, the actual text of the Constitution does not apply the heading “Vacancy and Disability”.  The heading is misleading.  A comprehensive investigation appears to reveal that the framers intended Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 – as it applied to the POTUS – for two distinct purposes.

- the first purpose is the commonly accepted purpose: to provide for a vacancy in the office of President

- the second purpose was to provide Congress a means to remove the President should it become clear that he is not entitled to hold the office, for example – a classic quo warranto situation or if the President becomes disabled.

I realize this is an entirely new theory of Constitutional law and that the common accepted interpretation is that the President can only be removed by impeachment.  As stated above, the Constitution does not state anywhere in its text that impeachment is the only means by which the President can be removed.  And since the concept of demanding public officials prove their legal warrant to hold office via the extraordinary writ of quo warranto goes back to feudal times, nobody can deny the framers were aware that usurpation was a sad fact of life.

How likely is it that the Framers failed to provide for usurpation of public office in the Constitution?  Knowing their collective wisdom, not very likely.  So please suspend judgment until the full weight of the evidence is revealed.

EVIDENCE THE FRAMERS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT BY QUO WARRANTO – SUCH POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS

If my theory is correct, then we should be looking for evidence that the Framers considered – in their deliberations upon Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 – that impeachment was not the sole means of ousting a sitting President.  The following are my list of exhibits.

EXHIBIT 1: A perfect on point reference from James Madison’s personal notes are included in the Records Of the Federal Convention:

In Case of his Impeachment, (Dismission) Removal, Death, Resignation or Disability to discharge the Powers and Duties of his (Department) Office; the President of the Senate shall exercise those Powers and Duties, until another President of the United States be chosen, or until the President impeached or disabled be acquitted, or his Disability be removed.

[2:186; Madison, 6 Aug.]

James Madison’s notes here pertain directly to Clause 6 and they list - separated by commas – all the various possibilities whereby the President’s office might be vacated.  Clearly, they considered that the Presidency might be vacated by a “Case of Impeachment” as well as “(Dismission) Removal, Death, Resignation, or Disability“.

Impeachment and Dismission are listed as mutually exclusive devices to remove the President.

EXHIBIT 2: Clause 6 directly follows the infamous Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 wherein the exact qualifications for the office of President are listed.

Qualifications for office are directly followed by a clause empowering removal from office.

EXHIBIT 3: The text of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 would be redundant unless the dual purposes listed above were intended.

Examine the first part of Clause 6 alone:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President,…

If the sole intention of the framers was that Clause 6 only applied – as to the POTUS – with regard to replacing a vacancy then there was no need to say anymore about it – as to the President.  The first line indicates that the powers devolve upon the Vice President when a vacancy occurs. So what’s the need for the next line?

…and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President,…

In this line we see that the Framers, who in the first line already provided directly for succession as to the President, have given Congress – in the 2nd line – the authority to “by Law provide for the Case of Removal… ” of the President and Vice President.

Now, let’s examine the third line:

…declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Without the bias of pre-conceived notions, a balanced reading of Clause 6 indicates that the Framers intended to give Congress the authority to remove the President as long as the manner in which they do that is provided for “by law” in line 2.   Then in line 3, the Framers charged Congress to provide for a line of succession should the Presidency be vacated… as well as the Vice Presidency, and so on.

If there was only one purpose, why mention the vacancy of the Presidency twice?

EXHIBIT 4:  The 25th Amendment.

One of the arguments against my theory is the misconception that the 25th Amendment superseded every purpose of Clause 6.  I don’t believe that’s correct.  The 25th amendment was born directly due to the clunky ambiguities contained in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.  And the 25th Amendment response to that wording directly attests that the Congressional power vested by Clause 6 was not just concerned with providing for a vacancy since the 25th Amendment also provides specific means by which Congress can force the President to leave office, temporarily and/or permanently:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

If Clause 6 only grants Congress the power of providing for a vacancy, then why does the 25th Amendment provide Congress the ability to “by law provide” (the same language as used in Clause 6 as to “removal”)  some “other body” the right to declare the President unable to discharge his duties?

Clearly, if the 25th Amendment was simply a clarification of Clause 6, then Clause 6 must have vested Congress with more power than just the power to provide for succession since the 25th Amendment allows Congress to replace the President with the Vice President.

Whether the President was found undeniably ineligible to be President – due to his not being a natural born citizen – would make him unable to discharge his duties is certainly debatable, but I don’t think the 25th Amendment pertains to that fact pattern since Clause 6 and Madison’s notes both list “Removal” and “inability to discharge the Power and Duties” as mutually exclusive.  It would be disingenuous to argue that the 25th Amendment directly pertains to a quo warranto situation.

However, it’s obvious that if the 25th Amendment is a response to the ambiguity of Clause 6, then Clause 6 wasn’t just intended to fulfill vacancies.  If Congress was given power in Clause 6 (as codified by the 25th Amendment) to actually replace the President upon his inability to discharge duties – then Congress also had the power to remove the President for being found ineligible.

The 25th Amendment is quite an amazing grant of power when you consider the President can be forced to step down if Congress believes he’s lost his mind.  That’s certainly a much greater power than just being authorized to decide how to fill the vacancy if he loses his mind.

More evidence to support my theory is found in what the the 25th Amendment doesn’t discuss.

The 25th Amendment doesn’t discuss death or resignation.

Why?

Because there is nothing to discuss.  When the President dies or resigns has nothing to do with Congress.  But when it came to deciding whether the President is able to discharge his duties, Congress is authorized to exercise removal power by the 25th Amendment – and such power must be derived directly from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.

QUESTION: If Congress has the power to remove a President should it become known he was a usurper, then why doesn’t the 25th Amendment address that?

ANSWER: Because by 1967 – when the 25th Amendment was ratified – Congress had already exercised their authority on this issue by enacting the federal quo warranto statute which allows for the removal of any United States officer found to be a usurper.

EXHIBIT 5: Article 2 Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors.

If one argues that the federal quo warranto statute does not apply to the President because the only way to remove a President is by impeachment, then it stands to reason that the statute also can not apply to “civil officers of the United States”.   If you’re going to argue that Article 2 section 4 is the sole means of removing the President, then you must also argue that it’s the sole means of removing “civil officers of the United States”.

If that’s your argument, then 16-3501 of the federal quo warranto statute makes absolutely no sense. Take a look:

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. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action. (Emphasis added.)

If Congress didn’t believe they had the authority to remove a usurper from any public office of the United States, they why did they enact the statute to to read as if it covers every public office of the United States?  Why didn’t they write relevant exceptions in the statute for the office of President, Vice President and civil officers?

The 25th Amendment clarified “Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6″ only in so far as the clause needed clarification.  It didn’t need clarification as to death or resignation of the President as those are obvious, and it didn’t need clarification as to issues of quo warranto and usurpers because they had enacted a thorough federal statute.

EXHIBIT 6: Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 – aka “The Hook Clause”

Article 1 Section 8 Clause17 states:

The Congress shall have power…To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States,…

Compare the wording of Clause 17 with §16-3501 of the federal quo warranto statute:

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. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

When you read the two back to back, it appears Constitutional that the office of President – being in the District of Columbia – should be governed by the federal quo warranto statute.

EXHIBIT 7: Analogous Congressional precedent – the voiding of “Mr. Shields” and “Mr. Galatin’s” US Senate elections after they were found to be usurpers who did not meet the qualifications for office enumerated in the Constitution.

While the Constitution doesn’t provide for impeachment of Senators or Representatives, it does provide for their “expulsion” by a vote of two thirds of all members of each body respectively.  Article 1 Section 5 states:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Like impeachment for a President, expulsion is sometimes erroneously assumed to be the only Constitutional process by which a Senator can be removed from office.  But that’s not accurate.  The Senate can remove a sitting Senator should he be found to be a usurper, just as they can remove a President found to be a usurper… and they have done so at least twice that I am aware of.

At Senate.gov, all fifteen of the Senators who have been removed by the Constitutionally enumerated process of expulsion are listed.  Please notice that the list doesn’t include Senator Shields who was removed by Congress in 1849.

Senator Shields was removed by the Senate after it was discovered that he was an alien by birth, and that when he was elected in January 1849 – from the State of Illinois, to serve as a US Senator – he had not been a US citizen for the requisite nine years.  However, he was not removed pursuant to the Article 1 section 5 expulsion power.

Instead, the Senate held that his election was entirely “void”.  Senator Shields even offered his resignation to the Senate, but his resignation was not accepted by the Senate who held that since Shields was never qualified, he was never a Senator even though he had been sworn in and had been serving as a Senator until March 1849 when his election was completely made void and the seat declared vacant.

Since Shields it was discovered – after Shields had occupied the Senate seat – that he didn’t meet the Constitutional qualifications for the office of Senate, the Senate held that he was never an actual Senator and so his removal is not recorded as an expulsion.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly state that the Senate may remove a Senator by making a determination that his election was void and that he was a usurper.  But that’s exactly what happened.  If the power to remove a usurper wasn’t Constitutionally allowed, the Senate couldn’t have voided Mr. Shields election and vacated his Senate seat.  But they did.

The Congressional Globe account of the Shields removal is preceded by an account of a similar precedent regarding a Mr. Albert Galatin.  Mr. Galatin was elected to the US Senate from Pennsylvania in 1793 and it was later found that he had never become naturalized.  The Senate again voided his election stating that the election wasn’t just “voidable”, but that since there was no way to cure the qualification defect… the election was completely “void”… it didn’t happen.

It’s important to note that the first quo warranto statue enacted by Congress didn’t take effect until 1787 [typo - that should read "1878"] so in 1793 and 1849 the Senate chose to void the elections of the two usurpers.

So here we have precedent for Congressional authority to remove Senators other than by expulsion.  Usurpation of office resulted in elections being voided and the Senate record do not even record usurpers as having been members of the Senate.  If Congress can remove a usurper to the Senate without expelling him, this provides evidence that Congress can remove a usurper to the Presidency without impeaching him.

It appears there is no possible separation of powers issue to confront.  If a person occupying the Presidency is found to be a usurper, then his Presidency is a fiction to be voided in history and his name removed from the record books.  A usurper isn’t allowed to have been said to be President.  His occupation is a fiction.

In the Galatin case the Senate made clear that since there was no possible way the failure to qualify could be cured, then the election was a total fiction and is void, not voidable, but void, as if it never happened.

[Special thanks to reader Kamira, who discovered the Galatin information in the Congressional Globe. ]

EXHIBIT 8: USC CODE: TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies

Please review §19:

Vacancy in offices of both president and vice president; officers eligible to act

§ 19.   (a) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

Please take notice that “failure to qualify” is listed as one of the means by which a vacancy in the office of President may occur.  And recall, as to Mr. Shields whose election to the Senate was voided, the Senate declared his seat vacant.

EXHIBIT 9: COMMON SENSE

Out of all the exhibits listed above, I think it’s most important to keep in mind the most simple evidence – common sense.  Does anybody really believe our Constitution prevents the removal of a person who is found to be a usurper to the office of President?

The answer must be no.

CONCLUSION: The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed by the Judicial branch.

(I must thank a special reader for making me aware of the Clause 17 hook.)

[To be continued in part 3.]

QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: part 1

INTRODUCTION:

Chapter 35§ 16-3501 Persons against whom issued; civil action.

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. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

The federal statute for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.

This legal brief considers all relevant issues pertaining to the proper legal use of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to determine Presidential eligibility.  The brief will be sent via regular and certified mail to Attorney General Eric Holder as well as to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor, along with an open letter requesting their direct attention to the issues contained herein.

Please note from the start that only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto.  The applicable statute vests both officials with the same mutually exclusive authority to do so.  The statute requires either/or, not both.  And the statute also provides a separate mechanism by which their official consent is not necessary to an action in quo warranto where the “third person” petitioning for the writ is also an “interested person”.

Regardless, I fear justice will never prevail on this issue.  By Justice I mean that the relevant issues will probably never be decided on the merits by any court.  Yet, I believe every man charged with the duty to uphold the law must be given his rightful chance to follow and be guided by the rule of law.  And until every effort is made to most effectively bring an action in quo warranto, I personally can’t be satisfied  I’ve done everything in my power to protect the Constitution and the Republic.  Thanks to my readers for pointing this out. (Also see my apology to SCOTUS for previous inflammatory comments along with removal of noted image.)

Since an action in quo warranto is unquestionably the correct legal device to challenge the eligibility of any public office holder and since quo warranto has not been properly set in motion or explained to the public, this brief will attempt to educate the public and the proper officials as to the need to resolve the Obama POTUS eligibility issue in a single quo warranto hearing rather than subject the nation to a floodgate of litigation from plaintiffs with proper standing to bring collateral attacks challenging, on the basis of POTUS ineligibility, any number of potential orders and actions to be issued by the Obama administration.

Additionally, having studied controlling quo warranto cases, I have come to the conclusion that military plaintiffs probably do not have any special standing to institute an action for quo warranto which differs from the standing of the general public.  Please consider that this statement is not based on emotion but on the following;

1) the controlling statute

2) the seminal US Supreme Court decision

3) other relevant SCOTUS and federal cases

When these are examined together, it appears no special standing exists for military personnel to institute actions in quo warranto under the statute.

However, there is a civilian subset of “third persons” who do have a viable claim to quo warranto standing to challenge Presidential eligibility in a direct legal attack on Obama’s title to office.  And so long as this civilian subset exists, there’s no good reason to subject our military to possible court martial by recklessly exposing them to UCMJ Article 88 violations as well as numerous other statutes which could potentially end their careers or land them in jail.

That military personnel are being exposed to court martial via contemptuous language and false headlines (ie, news report which erroneously stated an officer had defied a Presidential order) is one of the strongest public policy reasons why Attorney General Holder and/or US Attorney Taylor should be convinced to step in on their own motion, which is their unquestionable right by statute, to request a straight forward quo warranto hearing on the two basic core issues now in dispute.

1. Does Obama’s birth status having been governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, as was admitted by Obama, prevent him from satisfying the “natural born citizen” requirement of the Constitution.

2. Should Obama be forced to present, to the District Court for the District of Columbia, proper legal documentation to prove his place of birth by a form of identification regularly accepted by the Government for legal purposes.

POINT I:  WHETHER A WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO CAN BE ISSUED TO REMOVE A SITTING PRESIDENT?

A. Applicability of Statute 16-3501.

§ 16-3501 applies against any person within the District of Columbia who “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises… a public office of the United States.”  Under the statute, the writ of quo warranto is issued by the DC District Court in the name of the United States.

The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted this statute is Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915).  The opinion is truly one of most rational and clearly written decisions in Supreme Court history and by itself serves as a thorough education on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation.  I suggest everyone read the entire case.

According to SCOTUS, Newman at 552, the statute applies to any public office:

The Revised Statutes declare that the District of Columbia shall be the seat of government, and “all offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia.” The Code …provides that the… court shall have jurisdiction to grant quo warranto “against a person who unlawfully holds or exercises within the District a . . . public office, civil or military.” It was probably because of this fact that national officers might be involved that the Attorney General of the United States was given power to institute such proceedings…

…the District Code, in proper cases, instituted by proper officers or persons, may be enforceable against national officers of the United States. The sections are therefore to be treated as general laws of the United States, not as mere local laws of the District. Being a law of general operation, it can be reviewed on writ of error from this Court. American Co. v. Commissioners of the District, 224 U. S. 491; McGowan v. Parish, 228 U. S. 317.

Years later, any doubts as to the accuracy of this interpretation were completely nullified when current federal statute16-3501 revised the predecessor code to include officers of “the United States” and not just the District of Columbia.

Neither the statute nor any existing federal case provides an exception to the office of President or any public office of the United States.

CONCLUSION:  An action in Quo Warranto is the statutory legal device available to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President.

B. Constitutionality of using the federal quo warranto statute to remove a sitting President.

There are two sections of the Constitution which allow for the removal of the President.  Article 2, Section 4 allows for impeachment.  This is the remedy for removal of the President should he partake in high crimes or treason.   A quo warranto action as to POTUS eligibility does not appear to be covered by impeachment.

The second section of the Constitution which provides the removal of the President is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Many have argued that only Congress can remove a sitting President and that the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution denies the courts any legal ability to remove a sitting President.  But with the federal quo warranto statute, Congress has delegated that authority to the District Court of the District of Columbia by providing for the removal of the President (and other public officers) by quo warranto where the President is found to be a usurper to the office even if he assumed the office with a good faith belief he was eligible.

Consider the following scenario:  A quo warranto action is instituted by AG Holder or, in the alternative, US Attorney Taylor on their own motion.  In that case, there must be a hearing on the merits (this will be explained in detail below).  Further assume Obama then produces a perfect long form birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii, but then the District Court of DC holds that since Obama was also a British subject at the time of his birth, he is not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore not legally occupying the office of President.  Further assume that the DC District Court’s ruling is upheld by SCOTUS.

Under this fact pattern, Obama would not have broken any laws and so he couldn’t be impeached, but he would be removed from office pertaining to the removal authority of Congress enumerated in Article 2, Section 6, and so delegated by federal statute Chapter 35, §16-3501.

CONCLUSION: Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting President found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute .

POINT II: WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT?

[this brief will be continued in part 2]

For GI Joe…

[CORRECTIONS BELOW IN BLUE]

Let me start this blog off by stating that I hold no ill will towards Orly Taitz.   I have nothing personally against her and I have admired the amount of energy she has put out attempting to protect the Constitution.  However, I have witnessed, in my opinion, incredible mistakes of judgment.

The recent events chronicled in this blog pertaining to active military plaintiffs and the unnecessary jeopardy they have now been subjected to ANGERED me greatly.  That doesn’t mean I believe the attorney was operating with wrong intentions.  Sometimes in ones zeal to fight, emotions cloud judgment and mistakes are made.

Regardless, I am not impressed with the care given to our military.

I feel a groundswell of opposition coming from the military regarding the well known issues of whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.   And because I feel that the level of legal education being forwarded to our military as to this issue has been less than stellar, I have decided to present two educational legal templates to the military community via this blog.

Please note that I am NOT counseling any military as to whether they should join a law suit to challenge Obama’s Presidential eligibility.  I would STRONGLY counsel against their doing so.

I would STRONGLY counsel against their doing so.

Are we clear on that?  Good.  I am not representing anybody and I will NOT be filing any such law suits.

I have ZERO faith any law suit in any court of the nation will provide justice on this issue to any plaintiff — military or civilian.  However, since military people have decided to join such a law suit, I feel the need to provide the best possible legal research I can.

Next week I will produce a sample hypothetical law suit legal brief analyzing in full detail the possibility of petitioning for the extraordinary writ of quo warranto as to the issue of Obama’s POTUS eligibility on behalf of my vintage GI Joe doll that has been chewed up by my childhood dog, Sydney (found abandoned and injured by my Dad on Forest Park Golf Course — that dog was all messed up when he brought her home, but she had so much love in her it was just astounding).

This writ has very little chance of providing my GI Joe doll/plaintiff legal standing due to the very specific nature of federal statutory Quo Warranto standing requirements and applicable case law.

It’s a big stretch.

Furthermore, other than military people, Quo Warranto has ZERO chance of providing standing for State Government representatives or any of the other plaintiffs who have come to my attention.  I’m thoroughly convinced they will not have standing.  Military might have a remote outside shot, but certainly none of the other possible plaintiffs will have Quo Warranto available to them.

I will also attempt to provide all possible UCMJ (or other) code analysis as to each provision that might put my GI Joe in jeopardy of court martial.  And I will provide counsel as to how my GI Joe can best enter the hypothetical law suit while at the same time protect himself from court martial under the UCMJ.

I can’t give you a set deadline when any of this will be ready.  But it shouldn’t be more than a week before I have something up at this blog.  Stay tuned…

Military POTUS Eligibility Madness

A few weeks ago, I suggested hypothetically that active military might have standing to bring a class action to question Obama’s POTUS eligibility.  After reviewing various sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice pointed out to me by various readers, I came to the conclusion that such a law suit would probably not only fail, but would also subject soldiers to potential court martial.

I decided to have nothing to do with any such law suit involving military plaintiffs.  Their burden is already so large.  This is our burden.

Then, after seeing a consent form issued by Orly Taitz within which active military were being asked to state that they might disobey orders from President Obama, I realized that these men were truly being put in serious jeopardy.  I  responded with a blog which suggested that any soldiers who had a problem with Obama’s eligibility should consult a JAG lawyer or their personal attorney rather than going to the internet for advice.

I hoped the issue would go away, but it didn’t.  This week an active military officer signed a consent form to be a plaintiff in a future law suit brought by Orly Taitz.   Besides erroneously reporting that the officer had defied a Presidential order, the officer’s name was released and inflammatory and contemptuous statements were also released via World Net Daily, Orly’’s blog and the Drudge Report.

I complained vehemently and eventually the incorrect headline which grossly and erroeneously stated that the officer had defied a Presidential order was changed at all three sources.

Unfortunately, the damage had already been done. Review the following statement by the officer:

“Until Mr. Obama releases a ‘vault copy’ of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor…”

This statement should never have been made public. If Orly Taitz is going to solicit active military to join her potential law suit and sign consent forms thereto, then she should be charged with the responsibility of knowing the exact punishment her clients will be subjected to, and she should be protecting them from any unnecessary jeopardy.

There was absolutely no need for contemptuous language to have been uttered as such language is clearly in violation of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states:

Article 88—Contempt toward officials

a. Text of statute.

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Maximum punishment. Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

Clearly, calling the President an “imposter” and a “usurper” is contemptuous language by any possible definition of the word.

And now, as an article at military.com has pointed out, this officer is in serious jeopardy of facing charges.  And for what?  Publicity?  There is no law suit right now. The statement was completely and utterly not necessary.  It was enough to say that an active military officer had consented to be a plaintiff and leave it at that.  The man’s name did not have to be released and the contemptuous statement is irrelevant to any pleadings which may or may not be filed.

Furthermore, attorney Orly Taitz could have gagged her potential military client as to any such inflammatory statements thereby warning that, in order to protect him and any other possible soldier/plaintiffs from unnecessary legal jeopardy, she would refuse to represent them if they did not follow her instructions.

These statements released by attorney Taitz and Officer Easterling, while sensational, will have absolutely no effect on the outcome of any potential litigation she may file.  So putting her client in harm’s way at this point in time by allowing such blatant contempt to be uttered appears to be terribly reckless.

It’s not that the officer expressed his doubts, it’s the lack of tact used to have done so.  A person is allowed to think even if he is a soldier.  He is allowed to have thoughts cross his mind and if those thoughts create conflict and the soldier feels that he is willing to risk punishment for expressing those thoughts, then any attorney who seeks to represent that soldier owes it to that soldier to make sure those questions are asked judiciously and in a manner which reduces the risk of court martial to that soldier as much as is humanly possible.

If a soldier is questioning the eligibility of the President by agreeing to be a plaintiff in a potential law suit, then there is absolutely no reason for his attorney to release his name and inflammatory statements.  And if a statement is made by that soldier, it is enough to state the issue with dignity and respect.

For example, a much less dangerous statement to the officer could have simply said:

“Due to extensive major media coverage by MSNBC, CNN, ABC and other news sources of two law suits questioning President Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President that were referred to the full United States Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, I respectfully submit that I have serious questions regarding President Obama’s eligibility to be President and to order me as Commander In Chief.

It has come to my attention that both Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia had the option of denying these cases outright but instead determined they should be discussed in full conference by the entire Supreme Court.   It has also come to my attention that while the Supreme Court did not accept the cases for review at this time, they also did not decide against those cases on the merits.   As such, I have come to learn that those cases may have been denied certiorari on the basis of procedural errors in the lower courts and that the merits of those cases may eventually be decided against the President’s eligibility.

Because I have studied the issues involved with these cases and discussed them with my attorney, I have legitimate doubts about President Obama’s eligibility under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States since he has admitted that, at the time of his birth, his nationality status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.  Due to this admission, I do not understand how President Obama can be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States as is required by the US Constitution which I have taken an oath to defend.

I have faith that had the issues raised in these law suits been frivolous and without merit, such esteemed Justices as Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would have denied these cases rather than refer them to the full court as they have done.

Furthermore, because President Obama has refused to provide a long form birth certificate proving who he is, as was required of me by various Government agencies throughout my life, I am confused beyond reason as to there being any legitimate reason for his steadfast insistence upon burdening multiple judicial venues by fighting such requests to see his credentials.

As a soldier who is willing to die for my nation, and a citizen, I regretfully insist that my conscience is made heavy by all of this information.  In order to be the best citizen and soldier I can be, I respectfully intend to be a plaintiff in a future law suit to confront these issues.  I mean no disrespect to President Obama and I hope that he will respect my effort to defend the Constitution of the United States, not just in the danger zones of Iraq where I am now stationed, but also in the courts of the United States.”

This hypothetical statement would have served the soldier’s cause much better than the inflammatory cannon fodder released in his name via World Net Daily, the Drudge Report and his potential attorney Orly Taitz.

I cannot say for sure that such a statement would protect the officer from any possible legal jeopardy under the UCMJ.  Nor am I suggesting any soldier make such a statement.  But damn it, if you’re going to mix it up with a foe, you ought to make it as hard as possible for them to hit you.  There’s no offense like a good defense.

The above hypothetical statement contains no contemptuous language, makes a strong point, contains potential for empathy and informs the uninformed while any possible charges under Article 88 may have been voided.

Additionally, such a statement would have demanded much more respect for the issues raised by the soldier’s willingness to join a potential law suit.  After all, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia were not required to refer my case and Cort Wrotnowski’s case to the full court, but that’s exactly what they did.

The issues were covered in detail by the major media.   Who could blame a soldier for being confused and concerned when a sophisticated attorney like Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley even stated that the Supreme Court should decide the case on the merits and that he was also confused as to why Obama hadn’t produced a birth certificate:

“Moreover, I am not sure why the original isn’t simply produced for a more open review…  It is a shame for such cases to be resolved on purely technical standing grounds. This is the type of claim that should not be allowed to fester and enter the realm of conspiracy theory on the blogosphere… The value of court review is to remove such clouds of doubt and to assure citizens that the constitutional requirements have been satisfied.”

Unfortunately, this confused soldier was not carefully protected by his attorney and now faces potential charges as many others at military.com have suggested.

And I think it’s a damn shame.

Leo C. Donofrio