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.