He's Not My President?

Thoreau: "Government is Best Which Governs Least"

Posts Tagged ‘quo warranto

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 2: The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment

[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 https://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/

Request to DOJ for Quo Warranto Action


In reading extensively the laws regarding the natural born citizen issue surrounding Barack Obama, and in particular reading Leo Donofrio’s opinions on the matter, (following Donofrio’s own letter to the U.S. Attorney) I decided to email U.S. Attorney Taylor with carbon copy to Attorney General Holder.  I will also be following up with hard copies via certified mail with return receipts requested tomorrow.  I think for anyone that truly believes this issue is important, you should also construct your own original correspondence to U.S. Attorney Taylor and Attorney General Holder.  I think it is important to not just copy and paste a letter but to come up with our own well thought out appeal based on the facts.  I have included my letter here but highly encourage you to write your own correspondence as well.  Anyone seeking help with their own original correspondence can post their letter in the comment section, and I will be happy to review it and provide editorial notes.

 March 16, 2009 

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

Cc:  Attorney General, Eric Holder

Dear U.S. Attorney Taylor,

During last year’s Presidential election, many of us questioned the eligibility of several candidates placed on the ballots of various states for the Office of President of the United States.  It became even more troublesome to some of us when Barack Obama placed the following statement on his own website Fightthesmears.com:


“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

At that point, some of us saw this statement as the first factual statement that might prove Mr. Obama is in fact not a natural born citizen.  Many scholars and legal minds believe that to be a natural born citizen of this country and therefore eligible under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to be President of the United States that both parents must be U.S. Citizens at the time of the child’s birth and the child must be born on U.S. soil.  Although citizenship has been adjudicated in the courts, and has been referenced in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, a definition for natural born citizen has never been completely and clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, nor in its amendments nor in the courts.  In fact, it seems that with respect to the U.S. Constitution, its amendments and court cases that one would lean more toward the definition above then otherwise.

As a result, there are many in the United States and abroad that fear that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is therefore usurping the Office of President of the United States.  This present situation does not mean that President Obama is aware that he may not be a natural born citizen nor that he is aware that he may be usurping the office.  It simply means that his eligibility is in question and that this question in turn has important if not critical implications for our Constitution, our Republic and our Country.

Case in point, there are numerous lawsuits already in the courts regarding President Obama’s eligibility.  In one, if not more of those suits, military personnel have been called upon to join the lawsuits as plaintiffs in order to meet standing requirements.  In one instance, it was misreported via the Internet that an Officer Easterling was defying Presidential orders leaving him open to potential prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Our military is made up of honorable men and women whom may believe they have a special duty to pursue litigation to determine President Obama’s eligibility thereby opening themselves up to potential prosecution.

After researching the matter, and in particular reviewing the research of Attorney Leo Donofrio, it has been determined that members of the U.S. Military hold no special duty or standing to bring about litigation regarding President Obama’s eligibility.  What has been determined is that once President Obama was elected (not by popular vote or by state popular vote but) by the electoral college system provided for in the U.S. Constitution (and subsequently took the oath of office), the means by which to remove a usurper of the Office of the President of the United States is the District of Columbia’s Quo Warranto statute.  Furthermore the statute states in part that:

only the United States attorney and/or the US Attorney General have the authority, without requesting leave of the court, to institute this action.

Furthermore, the following sums up the research done with respect to Quo Warranto and citizenship issues:

1.    In accordance with the separation of powers (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches) of our government as put forth in the U.S. Constitution, the United States Congress exercised their legislative power to deal with a usurper including but not limited to the President of the United States by establishing the Quo Warranto statute, DC Code Sections:  16-3501, 16-3502 and 16-3503.

2.   Only you Mr. Taylor and/or present Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder have the proper jurisdiction and Constitutional and judicial powers to adjudicate this matter in the best interests of this nation and her citizenry.  You have a special duty to bring forth this action.

3.    No case can be brought directly by the U.S. Supreme Court on this matter as the U.S. Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiction to issue a writ of Quo Warranto and would be violating separation of powers of the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches).  The Congress has exercised their legislative powers and you and Attorney General Holder now hold the judicial means under Quo Warranto to proceed with the matter.

4.    Finally, many have argued in accordance with the 14thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution that President Obama is a natural born citizen; however, it seems that this line of thinking cannot be argued because according to the 14thamendment it is inadmissible to assume no effect of the wording “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as articulated as well as precedent setting in Chief Justice John Marshall’s written opinion in the seminal case of Marbury V. Madison.

Sir, I do not envy the burden placed on you by virtue of your present position as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.  Mr. Taylor, you and/or Attorney General Holder have a duty to bring resolution to this matter via the judicial branch of our government through the Quo Warranto statute.  Lacking such an action on the part of you or Attorney General Holder will jeopardize upholding the supreme law of the land (our United States Constitution).  It is an awesome burden placed upon you and Attorney General Holder, but I hope that you will act on this matter to secure our laws.  If the U.S. Constitution is not upheld, then what laws will be left in our land that must be adhered to?  A nation without laws is no longer a nation.  I appreciate any consideration you give to this matter.


Name Withheld in this Post

Email Address for Attorney Taylor:  dc.outreach@usdoj.gov

Email Address for Attorney General Holder:  AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Update 3/18/2009

In order to assist you with writing your own original letter to U.S. Attorney Taylor and Attorney General Holder, your letter should follow this general construction:

  • Introduction — The introduction should include the primary element that you are requesting which is that they initiate a quo warranto action due to Barack Obama not being a natural born citizen.  The introduction can be several paragraphs long but should be tightened up as best as possible.  My Introduction really takes up about half of what I wrote and is intermixed with the crux of my arguments that should have been clearly separated into the body of my letter.  My letter could be cleaned up considerably on this point.
  • Body — The body should utilize the research from Leo Donofrio’s site clearly showing that the law leans toward the fact that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and that the quo warranto statue is the only means to remove a usurper from the Office of the Presidency of the United States.  The body can also make use of the military concerns as to why this action must be brought forth.  My letter has the Introduction and Body too much intertwined.  You can write a much better and more coherent letter than mine following these simple basic constructions of essays/letter writing.
  • Conclusion — The conclusion should reiterate that U.S. Attorney Taylor or Attorney General Holder must act on this matter.  You can utilize passionate pleas here but it also important to ensure that you are keeping to the facts of the matter in your passionate discourse.

Written by KJ Kaufman

March 16, 2009 at 8:37 pm