[SatinDoll]

The U.S. Constitution states that only the legislative branch of government, the Congress, has the power to remove a President from office. Impeachment is the most obvious method.

However, Congress has delegated the power to remove a usurper from the Presidency, via Quo Warranto, to the District Court of Washington, D.C. The interesting aspect of Quo Warranto is that the President would have to prove he/she is eligible to be President.

All other Judicial avenues are ineffectual.

[K-oneTexas]

Has any of these suits applied to the District Court of Washington DC?

If yes, have any been deemed ‘not to have standing’? If so, why?

Has Quo Warranto been used in any federal court regarding this subject?

This makes me wonder why are attorneys filing suit in their local courts and not in Washington DC? Is this something that is lacking in their training or education? Something doesn’t appear right when attorneys are filing suits nationwide and having them dismissed. Especially if this is a know fact in the legal profession ... begs a question on the abilities of the attorneys involved. Unless they are trying to make new case law and widen the venue of the statute without legislative action.

[Lurking Libertarian]

However, Congress has delegated the power to remove a usurper from the Presidency, via Quo Warranto, to the District Court of Washington, D.C. The interesting aspect of Quo Warranto is that the President would have to prove he/she is eligible to be President. All other Judicial avenues are ineffectual.

Two quo warranto cases have been filed in the D.C. District Court, and both were rejected (by a Reagan-appointed judge).

Sorry, but this issue is going to be pursued by Congress or not at all.