Good information from the Constitution, but I believe much it applies only prior to the Inauguration, when the Electoral College and Congress still have an opportunity to consider the qualifications of the President Elect, and act accordingly.
After the Inauguration, we no longer have a President Elect. We have, instead, a sitting president, and that’s a whole different ball game.
Because of the Separation of Powers, the Judicial Branch of government, including the Supreme Court, cannot remove a sitting president. Only Congress has the Constitutional authority to remove a sitting president, for any reason.
Congress retains its removal authority in cases in which the President commits a crime while in office. In such cases, the removal process is called “Impeachment”.
In 1901, when Congress enacted the Federal Quo Warranto Statute, Congress transferred its removal authority to the DC District Court, but only for cases in which the President is found to be ineligible after he takes office.
Congress can still remove, via impeachment, a President who commits a crime while in office. But unless Congress repeals the Federal Quo Warranto Statute, it no longer has the authority to remove a sitting president for ineligibility reasons.
Even if Congress wanted to intervene in the Obama eligibility matter, it cannot do so, because it gave up its authority in 1901, and pass this authority, in entirety, to the DC District Court.
Even though the Judicial Branch normally does not have the power to remove a sitting President, the DC District Court has such power, because it received such power from Congress.
All of this is very carefully and thoroughly explained on Leo Donofrio’s blog:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Donofrio believes that a Quo Warranto action in the DC District Court is the only Constitutional way of removing a sitting President for ineligibility reasons. Other lawsuits might generate publicity and uncover some new information, but no Court, not even the Supreme Court, can remove a sitting president, except the DC District Court. And the only way the DC District Court can remove a sitting President is through a Quo Warranto action, instituted in accordance with the Federal Quo Warranto Statute.
Welcome to FR.
Even if Congress wanted to intervene in the Obama eligibility matter, it cannot do so, because it gave up its authority in 1901, and pass this authority, in entirety, to the DC District Court.
Even though the Judicial Branch normally does not have the power to remove a sitting President, the DC District Court has such power, because it received such power from Congress.
Ping; read more at # 46.
Welcome to FR and thank you for your information.
Lets study the wording within section three of the twentieth amendment a little more precisely. It says...
" ”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
It states in FOURdifferent instances, with each different instance applying to the naming of a President, "shall have qualified", or "shall have failed to qualify". This indicates to me that this provision was extremely important to those who wrote the language of this section. It is clearly meant to ensure that to be President, one "MUST QUALIFY" or Congress is ordered to name a President if you do not.
IF this has not been done, there is no President because Congress has failed to act as ordered. If you are not legally President, there is no "equal" status under separation of powers and no need for an impeachment process. Any member of Congress or individual state legislature has the standing to demand to see the evidence (long form birth certificate would be needed) proving whether or not this provision of the Constitution has been carried out. Their individual oaths of office require them to do so.
If there was a "qualification", lets see who did what. We, as citizens, have a right to know whether or not the person pretending to be President is in fact legally able to do so. If this "right" exist, no judge has the power to deny it to us. If a judge can do so, then it's not a right.