Replies

Every one of those questions is wholly irrelevant.

To date, not a single court has moved to take this issue up. And, in every understanding of existing US statutory and constitutional law, the ONLY way to remove a sitting president is by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

I'm sorry you're either too obtuse to understand these very elementary American jurisprudential concepts, or too argumentative to care.

Personally, I agree with Mark Levin on this issue. Period.

Every one of those questions is wholly irrelevant.

Why do you hate America?

Every one of those questions is wholly irrelevant.

Irrelevent to you? So you don't care how many different countries has your president been a citizen of? and you believe that a person who has questionable allegiance to the United States of America should be the President of our country? and you don't believe that your president has questionable allegiance to the United States? and you don't believe that only a natural born citizen as stated in the Constitution of the United States can be President of our country? and you believe that your president is a natural born citizen of the United States? and you don't believe that Barack Hussein 0bama should be removed from office? and you are going to continue to fight us FReepers on our deeply held beliefs? Why are you afraid to answer these very simple questions?

“To date, not a single court has moved to take this issue up. And, in every understanding of existing US statutory and constitutional law, the ONLY way to remove a sitting president is by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.”

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence!

IMO the sole reason the 9th Circuit agreed to hear oral arguments in Drake v. Obama is their extreme discomfort with the Obama DOJ contention that for a sitting president, ONLY the Senate gets to interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen” eligibility.

My take from the oral argument is that even these three Democrat appointed judges (one Carter, two Clinton) couldn't stomach the idea of stripping SCOTUS of the exclusive power to rule of the meaning of NBC.

Judge Berzon said she was “concerned” by this “vague” argument (my children knew it was time to cringe when I used the words “I'm concerned”). Berzon is referring to the same argument that both you, BHO, and the Obama DOJ made in their brief and oral argument, the argument that impeachment is the only remedy for ineligibility and that conviction (and definition of ineligibility) is the exclusive right of the Senate.

Berzon followed that up with “That's not what it (the Constitution) says” and “Where does it say that?

Berzon specifically challenges the Obama DOJ argument that ineligibility, a condition which pre-dates inauguration, can be grounds for impeachment! Here is my own version of the transcript:

36:00 Constitutional discussion with DEJUTE

BERZON: If we did need to get to the political question…I was a little concerned about …you try to point to textual commitments in the Constitution to other branches, but they’re a little…vague, are they not? What provisions of the Constitution do you think are committing these eligibility determinations of an officer of a candidate, of an officer, of an actual official to Congress, the Electoral College or somewhere else?

DEJUTE: Right, well it isn’t that general, your Honor. It isn’t a federal official or some other person, it’s the sitting president.

BERZON: Alright.

DEJUTE: It’s a distinction worth noting because the commitment to the House is that that body has the sole authority under the Constitution…

BERZON: …to impeach.

DEJUTE: To impeach. And the Senate has the sole authority…

37:00 BERZON: But this wouldn’t be grounds for impeachment, would it?

DEJUTE: Wouldn’t it be a high crime and misdemeanor? I don’t know…we’re in the area of there has clearly been no case law. But I do know that if the Constitution says that the only body that can remove a sitting president is the Congress in both houses, then the…

37:22 BERZON: Where does it say that?

DEJUTE: Well, I just suggested, and you did accurately say “impeachment”…the House says that the House has the sole responsibility to impeach. The Senate has the sole responsibility to convict, and in the Nixon case, the United States Supreme Court has cautioned courts to allow impeachment proceedings as a quintessential non-judiciable element and to stay away because that is what the Senate has the sole responsibility to do, and, by definition, not the courts.