He's Not My President?

Thoreau: "Government is Best Which Governs Least"

Natural Born Citizen — Chapter 14: Legal Remedies

The remedies currently available regarding the natural born citizen requirement

As we learned in our last chapter, there were those who attempted to resolve this issue before the election and again before the election results became official through the Electoral College process, but those attempts were unsuccessful.  So what does this mean for the American people?  Is there no legal remedy left to us to ensure the eligibility of the Commander in Chief after the election results are official and the President has sworn the oath and resides in the Office?  The answer, as Leo Donofrio researched and concluded, is the quo warranto statute.

Many of you may be under the impression that the only remedy to remove a President found to be usurping the office would be through the impeachment process powers granted to the United States Congress in the Constitution, but that would be inaccurate.  As Leo Donofrio argues in part one of his three part brief:

…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. [i]

To support his legal argument he introduces us to the quo warranto federal statute citing the following pertinent language contained therein:

§ 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. [ii]

Leo Donofrio is introducing us to two important points here:

  1. The Congress has delegated its duties regarding removal of persons usurping federal offices to the District Court of the District of Columbia under the quo warranto statute, and 
  2. Both the United States Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia hold the power to bring a suit using the quo warranto statute to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President.

It is critical that we understand that there is a way out and that a usurper does not need to remain in office if only those with the Constitutional and legal power choose to challenge the usurper.  Unfortunately, the reality is that the likelihood that the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia will pursue this matter might be characterized as on par with “pigs flying.”  We reach a point where we might conclude that no action will ever be taken in this matter and as a result, or possibly another unintended consequence would be that a dangerous precedence is set as to who is eligible to be President of the United States. It is deplorable that the quo warranto statute will probably not be used.  Making use of the quo warranto statute would most certainly lead to appeals all the way up to the United Supreme Court where once and for all we would finally receive a definition of natural born citizen. 

The goal of this book is in part to open a national dialogue on the subject matter of natural born citizen, but the book’s ultimate goal is to have the term natural born citizen defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.  With the book’s ultimate goal in mind, the quo warranto statute is not the only legal means to garner said outcome.  Every State Legislature in the nation has the power to bring this issue to light and to the public through its own State’s election laws.

In January of 2009, the Arizona Legislature introduced bill SB 1158 An Act Ammending Sections 16-341 and 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes; Relating to Conduct of Elections.  The bill focuses on adding the following language in an attempt to make presidential candidates prove that they are Natural Born Citizens:

Within ten days after filing the nomination paper, a presidential candidate shall submit an affidavit in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in ARTICLE II, section 1, Constitution of the United States. [iii]

Unfortunately, this legislation focuses on Barack Obama’s birth controversy or conspiracy (however you choose to categorize those who believe he may not have been born in Hawaii, or that we at least have no proof that he was born in Hawaii) rather than focusing on his admitted dual citizenship at birth, but this legislation is a start.  I contend that legislation like this could prove very important to resolving this issue, but the legislation must go further and define the term natural born citizen.  If we accept that we have no definition for the term natural born citizen, then it seems difficult for a potential presidential candidate to prove that he or she is a natural born citizen regardless of the paperwork he or she submits if the term natural born citizen is not defined in the legislation.

In attempt to get this clarification inserted into Arizona Senate Bill 1158 (SB1158), I emailed the sponsors of the bill asking that they include in their legislation the definition for natural born citizen.  Several of the State Senators whom I emailed responded letting me know that Senate Bill 1158 did not get passed in the last legislative session and is, therefore, “dead.”  I have encouraged them to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session and to add the language defining natural born citizen.  I have encouraged them to use Emerich de Vattel’s definition, but should they use a different definition that would be fine as well.  The goal here is that they insert a definition for natural born citizen into the legislation and then pass the legislation.  Once the legislation is passed with a definition of natural born citizen included therein, I am confident that the definition the State Legislature uses will be challenged and hopefully a court case will make it to the United States Supreme Court so that the definition can be declared once and for all. 

Should my legislators in the State of Arizona not take up this matter, or fail to pass this legislation, it is my hope that another State will do such.  Regardless, the issue of natural born citizen can still be resolved in the courts either through the quo warranto statute or through election laws passed in our States.  The onus now is on the American public to demand that one or both of these measures are taken.

For a more detailed look at the Quo Warranto Statute, I encourage you to read all three parts of Leo Donofrio’s legal brief which can be found at the following links:
QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: part 1

 

QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF – Part 2: The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment
 
QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: Part 3 STANDING-TRIAL BY JURY- HISTORY OF STATUTE – SEPARATION OF POWERS Cont.,

[ii] Quo Warranto Legal Brief: Part 1 Natural Born Citizen Blog — http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-1/
[iii] SB 1158 An Act Amending Sections 16-341 and 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes; Relating to Conduct of Elections — http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1158p.htm

 

Any reproduction of the content in this blog post must credit the author: KJ Kaufman (aka:  curi0us0nefromthe60s) and must reference a link to this blog site http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com or link to the specific blog post cited.  You are free to distribute this content in order to educate the populous as long as you adhere to the aforementioned conditions.  Your cooperation in citing this source when reproducing, referencing or redistributing the content contained herein is greatly appreciated.

 


>[i] Quo Warranto Legal Brief: Part 1 Natural Born Citizen Blog — http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-1/

About these ads

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Please give my blog a read.
    http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/

    In particular, pertinent to this chapter, look at http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/worldnetdaily-article-interviewing-yours-truly-me/ and also read the linked WND article.

    I did not cite any case law supporting my theory of jurisprudence, that a judge could ignore the subject matter and focus on the definition of Natural Born Citizen . . . thus avoiding the Political Questions Doctrine. The case I could cite is obscure . . . the obvious case, of course, is Bush v Gore (2000)

    You wrote quite a comprehensive overview. I concentrated, instead, on law governing citizenship and the succint definition of NBC under Obama’s birth circumstances.

    paralegalnm

    October 19, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    • I read the first link you supplied to your blog site. Good work. I enjoyed the perspective you have taken on the subject.

      curi0us0nefromthe60s

      October 23, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  2. You write that “[t]he goal of this book is in part to open a national dialogue on the subject of natural born citizen, but the book’s ultimate goal is to have the term natural born citizen defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

    Let us begin the dialogue! I have done some work myself on this topic; that is, what is a natural born citizen. Please click on this link to read it: http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14217 . I do not think that the Supreme Court of the United States is needed to define this term, rather, they need to clean up their mess they made since Slaughterhouse.

    Dan Goodman

    October 19, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    • I read your article that you linked to above ; however, I think you have missed a critical point. In the Minor v. Happersett case, the Chief Justice, writing the opinion of the court, made it very clear that the Constitution did not define natural born citizen, and that we would have to look elsewhere. The 14th Amendment was ratified prior to the Minor v. Happersett case; therefore, when the Chief Justice stated that natural born citizen was not defined in the Constitution that would include within the 14th Amendment. The Chief Justice went on to say in the opinion that we have never disputed that children born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens of the U.S. are natural born citizens, but any less than the prior statement, there have been disputes as to natural born citizenship. I am paraphrasing here, but you can read what was actually stated in my Chapter in the book that looks in detail at the Minor v. Happersett case.

      I appreciate the detail you went to in your post, but you missed a critical point, and your arguments therefore fall very short of proving natural born citizenship in the U.S. is a matter of jus soli and jurisdiction only.

      curi0us0nefromthe60s

      October 23, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  3. Actually, NBC is defined in the Constitution.
    Read carefully Article II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5.

    It is right there in plain language.

    That is why I don’t concentrate on Minor, Guest, Ark, etc . . . to use those cases to define Article II would be like using a formula cell of a spreadsheet to calculate oringinal data entry.

    Just ask this question: Under what part of Article II can the son of a British subject be eligible for the presidency?

    paralegalnm

    October 23, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    • My response citing Minor v. Happersett was in response to Dan Goodman’s comment not your comment. But I understand how your post defines the term within the Constitution and does not look to cases such as Minor v. Happersett.

      curi0us0nefromthe60s

      October 23, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  4. This is good law, but isn’t D.C. still fighting the Heller decision?

    Let’s see if Judge Carter in Orly Taitz’s Barnett vs Obama allows the case to be moved to the D.C. court jurisdiction.

    paralegalnm

    January 10, 2010 at 12:44 pm


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: