Posted on 03/05/2009 7:35:39 AM PST by conservativegramma
This evening, Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, reports that he has released the first part of his legal briefing stating his opinion of challenging the President’s authority via a prerogative writ known as quo warranto.
At this time, Mr. Donofrio will be working solo on this issue.
For the “illegitimizers” (my term for those who don’t believe there’s a need to enforce the Constitution’s eligibility requirements) out there, Mr. Donofrio points out a very interesting aspect of law:
Many have argued that only Congress can remove a sitting President and that the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution denies the courts any legal ability to remove a sitting President. But with the federal quo warranto statute, 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at therightsideoflife.com ...
HA! Its the "illegitimizers" vs. the "birthers"!!!!
ping
ping
Leo will be on Plains Radio tonight at 7 pm CST according to Caren Hale. He had been reluctant to go back on the radio before. I hope he sticks to it.
Well all the clowns calling us birthers or illegitimizers may be singing a new tune when they lose their job, business or get their 401-K, fund or brokerage statement.
Obama is wrecking the economy and markets and he wants to make it even worse. Anyone expecting a recovery while we have an ineligble POTUS is dreaming.
The local talk show hosts on a 50,000 watt AM station reaching an area with 3 million people was talking about the BC at drive time yesterday.
I’ll be listening tonight too Frantzi. I’m glad Leo is back.
The big propblem here is that this will be in D.C. courts, why even bother filing.
Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 1
Well, while you’re making lists, you might as well add me too.
I will attempt to read the article at the link, but I am sure that when I have finished I will still need the For Dummies version.
Anyone who gets this could you explain in simple language? (Illegitimizers need not apply.)
Bless your ping
1. The constitution permits impeachment of the Pres for high Crimes and Misdemeanors, but one theory is that this is not a criminal act.
2. The Constitution permits congress to determine how to remove a president from office under various scenarios.
3. Congress passed the Quo Warranto act to allow certain officials in the District of Columbia to remove federal officials for lack of qualifications.
4. Therefore, it should be used if Obama was not qualified. It is not a “criminal proceeding”
5. It forces the official to prove he is qualified.
Thanks IP.
Yesterday someone FRmailed the link, asked it not be posted, and at the time I wondered why not since it already was on the net’.
Thanks!
Sorry: You don’t qualify.
“At this time, Mr. Donofrio will be working solo on this issue.”
Ever wonder why no one wants to work with Donofrio?
Why? I consider myself to be a ‘birther’ as well. :-)
Leo is doing it on his own dime. At least he is doing something while stinking RINO politicians are Obama’s lap dogs.
I’m confused, a month ago you where promoting Orly and trashing Donofrio and Berg, now you’ve switched.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.