How to remove a US president?

3/25/10 | conservativesister

[conservativesister]

I've searched FR, googled, and wicki-ed, the only thing I can find about removing a president is :

The House of Representatives has the power to bring articles of impeachment against a president. If articles are brought, then the president is considered impeached (but not guilty). A simple majority of the vote is sufficient to bring articles of impeachment.

Article 2, section 4 of the Constitution indicates reasons removal from office. "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Obviously, The House isn't going to listen to the people, my question is what rights do the people have for recall (like Gov. Davis) or removal of the President?

[edge919]

Fukino did a good bait and switch. In October 2008, she says she personally saw and verified that Obama’s original birth certificate was on file in accordance with state policies and procedures (which doesn’t specifically say she looked AT the birth certificate).

Then in July 2009, it becomes a statement that she has seen original vital records maintained on file, but this time not in accordance to the state policies and procedure. And this time, she didn’t say she personally verified the claim. Instead she says she just saw records that somehow verified a claim.

These undocumented, unspecified records somehow reveal a detail that her department has said is not allowed to be released, as well as a separate claim that isn’t legally contained on any Hawaii vital record in accordance to its state policies and procedures.

Why did she make a vague statement about vital records when she was previously more specific?? Obviously, she wasn’t talking about the original birth certificate, so what other vital records verify a place of birth and how accurate are such records??

[Ouderkirk]

So what exactly are you going to do about it ???!!!

Your indignation has grown tiresome. Fly out to Hawaii and kick in the doors to the Health Department, and at gunpoint force the clerk to open the files and make a certified copy for you.

If you're not prepared to do exactly that, then there is no point in bringing up King George, taxation without representation, or any thing else.

Then we can read in the papers how a madman tea-party activist birther went on a rampage and had to be killed by Honolulu P.D. SWAT.

Either you're prepared to work within the system or you're not.

[jamese777]

Yes, to gullible faithers and people who have superficial understanding of the issue, the story you cited is a great example of how Fukino’s claims were intentionally misreported. The headline claims the birth certificate is real, when in fact, no such statement was ever made. The story includes the deliberate, partial and multiple use of a political label (’birthers’) to marginalize any disagreement. It then cites a political whitewash attempt by an Obama supporter (Abercrombie’s Hawaii resolution), as if that proves anything other than gullible faith. Meanwhile, Fukino’s statement stands as nothing more than vague doublespeak and an outright falsehood. What happened to our traditional adversarial fourth estate?? When did they become lapdogs and useful idiots??

---

Neither the state and federal Courts nor any members of Congress (it would have only taken one senator and one representative) are/were willing to take on the Obama eligibility issue.

Time will tell whether any other court besides those two in Indiana who ruled Obama to be a natural born citizen in “Ankeney v Mitch Daniels” will agree with your position.

The Indiana Court of Appeals clearly stated, and I quote:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”

I note that Ankeny et. al. has not been appealed, to date and a request by the plaintiffs for a rehearing was denied.

If Dr. Fukino’s statements are false, you’d think that someone would have challenged them in court successfully in the 8 months since they were issued.

When Abercromie’s resolution is approved by the House on a 390-0 vote; when the Republican Governor of Hawaii continually refers to Hawaii as “President Obama’s birthplace;” when Vice President Cheney doesn’t even ask if there were any objections to certifying Obama’s electoral votes; when McCain doesn’t sue or enter any existing suit; when no plaintiff prevails in any of 74 Obama eligibility lawsuits including seven denials by the US Supreme Court;
When the Republican members of Congress invite Obama to their winter retreat and ask no questions about his eligibility, most people come to the conclusion that “there’s no there there.”

[edge919]

Neither the state and federal Courts nor any members of Congress (it would have only taken one senator and one representative) are/were willing to take on the Obama eligibility issue.

Yes, we've explained why several times. Have you forgotten already??

Time will tell whether any other court besides those two in Indiana who ruled Obama to be a natural born citizen in “Ankeney v Mitch Daniels” will agree with your position.

They didn't rule Obama to be a natural born citizen.

If Dr. Fukino’s statements are false, you’d think that someone would have challenged them in court successfully in the 8 months since they were issued.

Not at all. A reasonable person would recognize that her statement fooled people who don't understand the issue and don't realize part of her statement was an actual falsehood. The birther characterization has been successful enough to make a lot of people too uncomfortable to look too closely into the matter any further out of concern for character attacks.

When the Republican members of Congress invite Obama to their winter retreat and ask no questions about his eligibility, most people come to the conclusion that “there’s no there there.”

Right, because they believe the multiple lies that have been told on behalf of Obama or simply don't want to deal with the political backlash from faithers. This too has been explained several times.

[the_doc]

I don't completely disagree with you, but I have to point out that you didn't respond to anything I said in Post #97.

My point here is that I am already aware of everything you said. But you may not have thought all the way through the issues that I have separately raised concerning 1) Quo Warranto challenges and 2) discovery-related orders by federal judges in lawsuits.

(My point, again, is that I think that your comment that there is no statute requiring that Obama produce a birth certificate in order to run for or even become President is not relevant. That is because I think that there is more than one legal way to compel production of a birth certificate. I still think that I am correct about that.)

[Ouderkirk]

Doc,

that there is no statute requiring that Obama produce a birth certificate in order to run for or even become President is not relevant.

It is totally relevant. It is the issue in totality. There is no controlling legal authority either state or federal that requires the production of a Birth Certificate to run for, be elected to, be sworn in as and act legally as president of the US.

Quo Warrento and other legal devices to attempt to compel Zero to produce a BC are meaningless if there is no legal reason for them to produce that BC, BEFORE assuming office.

That we stand here and jump up and down screaming that he needs to produce it is all well and good but it has no force of law and there is no statute. The parties who could compel him are the electoral college, and the prior to inauguration VP which was R. Cheney. Cheney didn't demand that Zero produce it, and he had every right to do so, and he did not. He would be the only one with standing to sue if Zero refused Cheney's demand for bona fides as to citizenship.

In this case, the issue is lost. There is no-one with standing, who demanded a BC at a critical juncture prior to inauguration.

The game is over until the next election, and in the absence of a concrete statute in the next election we will be at the same point. It's time to let it go, and focus on what matters. A legal statute in some state forcing the candidate to prove citizenship. ( and if it is a single state, the candidate could refuse, not be on the ballot in that state and still win the election, and still be inaugurated. So the statute would have to be federal. Good luck with that with this bunch of libtards.

[jamese777]

Yes, we’ve explained why several times. Have you forgotten already??

---

You seem to have forgotten so it can’t be repeated often enough to remind you that CONGRESS and ONLY CONGRESS had the legal authority under the laws of the United States to stop Obama if he was ineligible BEFORE he was sworn in. Congress chose not to exercise that option and when court after court dismisses lawsuits because the defendants “fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the courts are saying “what you want us to do was the job of Congress. We hold to separation of powers.”

---

“They didn’t rule Obama to be a natural born citizen.”

the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen on the basis of his parents not BOTH being American citizens is an invalid legal argument and is not constitutionally supported. On the basis of that, they dismissed the lawsuit challenging Obama receiving Indiana’s Electoral votes.
Here is the exact wording of the Court’s decision on that matter: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”

The plaintiffs were asking the Court to decertify Obama’s electoral votes on the grounds that he was ineligible due to the fact that he does not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen because both of his parents were not American citizens. The court specifically and quite deliberately rejected that argument and dismissed the lawsuit.

---

“Not at all. A reasonable person would recognize that her statement fooled people who don’t understand the issue and don’t realize part of her statement was an actual falsehood. The birther characterization has been successful enough to make a lot of people too uncomfortable to look too closely into the matter any further out of concern for character attacks.”

Ah, the old “birthers are victims” ploy.

---

“Right, because they believe the multiple lies that have been told on behalf of Obama or simply don’t want to deal with the political backlash from faithers. This too has been explained several times.”

You are just so much smarter and better informed than every single conservative member of Congress. You’ve certainly got a ready “explanation” for every contingency. The problem is that none of your explanations has held up in any court.

[edge919]

You seem to have forgotten so it can’t be repeated often enough to remind you that CONGRESS and ONLY CONGRESS had the legal authority under the laws of the United States to stop Obama if he was ineligible BEFORE he was sworn in.

Congress has the power of impeachment, but as for stopping an ineligible candidate from being sworn in, this is not so clearly delineated.

Congress chose not to exercise that option and when court after court dismisses lawsuits because the defendants “fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the courts are saying “what you want us to do was the job of Congress. We hold to separation of powers.”

IOW, the courts made an excuse to say out. Any other time, they don't seem to have any problem dealing with Constitutional issues. But as long as you BELIEVE, faith is all you need.

the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen on the basis of his parents not BOTH being American citizens is an invalid legal argument and is not constitutionally supported.

Yet they cleverly avoided saying Obama was a natural born citizen. Amazing how this court found a way to make a statement without making a specific statement.

The plaintiffs were asking the Court to decertify Obama’s electoral votes on the grounds that he was ineligible due to the fact that he does not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen because both of his parents were not American citizens. The court specifically and quite deliberately rejected that argument and dismissed the lawsuit.

The NBC issue was immaterial to their decision. It was a toothless add-on so they could grandstand a little. Some courts like to grandstand.

Ah, the old “birthers are victims” ploy.

You, yourself, posted a great example with a story making a false claim about what Fukino said, which was accompanied by several mentions of the birther label. Thanks for proving my point.

You are just so much smarter and better informed than every single conservative member of Congress. You’ve certainly got a ready “explanation” for every contingency. The problem is that none of your explanations has held up in any court.

Well, I'm flattered and I can't deny that you're right. I am smarter. None of my 'explanations' has been presented in any court that I'm aware of.

[jamese777]

“Congress has the power of impeachment, but as for stopping an ineligible candidate from being sworn in, this is not so clearly delineated.”

---

Gee, to me, the law of the land is very clearly delineated. Challenge a candidate’s electoral votes and you challenge the candidate’s eligibility. The process of objecting to the certification of an illegal candidate’s electoral college vote is precisely spelled out in the statute law of the land. I can’t see how anything could be any more clear:
US CODE TITLE 3 Chapter 1 Section 15
Counting electoral votes in Congress
Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000015——000-.html

The Courts have said, it is Congress that has a statuatory process. Its not our job to rule on this issue.

[edge919]

The Courts have said, it is Congress that has a statuatory process. Its not our job to rule on this issue.

This makes no sense. Since when do courts not rule on statutory processes?? Second, what you cited says nothing about eligibility.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

ST: I would like to be wrong about you!

I'm just getting back after a couple of days away on other things, so I thought I would get back to this one thing here... before I go on to other posts to answer...

I think the key here is to know that I voted for the GOP ticket and there would be no situation in which I would vote for Obama.

In fact, I've voted for the GOP ticket since Nixon... so... that should make things a bit clearer as far as my background.

Whatever the problems are here with Obama, they can be fixed and I don't think there are any "quick fixes" like some are trying to get.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Your post is pretty much how I feel about the issue, especially #2.

Well, I'm glad to hear that ...

I’d only take slight exception to #1. There is no evidence, that I’m aware, of any lawyers being consulted before the statement was released.

You're right in that the State of Hawaii did not say, anywhere explicitly, that they consulted lawyers.

But, I also know that such an official statement by a state, in which the subject is contentious, being disputed and is critical in the minds of the American public and that it hinges on legal matters -- that simple "due diligence" by the state would be all that would be necessary for their lawyers to be involved.

And all states have their staff of lawyers to be able to render legal opinions to the other officials in the state when requested. That sort of thing does happen all the time.

And you can pretty well bet that a lot of discussions among many officials went on behind the scene, along with the lawyers, about whether to say anything and/or what to say, if something was said.

As I see it, they said just exactly what needed to be said, not too much and not too little.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

However plain old citizenship is not the Constiutional requirement. Natural Born Citizen status is.

And that is what is being disputed by "legal eagles" on both sides of that issue and that is what will need to be settled by a Supreme Court decision -- if one ever comes... and I even wonder whether it will be addressed at all.

I suspect not.

[Canedawg]

The line of succession you posted is SICKENING!

Believe it or not, of all those names, I’d prefer having biden as a lame duck incompetent.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

That may be. But, bottom line, the political process cannot overide the provisions of the Constitution. (save by making amendments to it as provided therein)

The political process can make it so that there's not a problem with any legal processes concerning the Constitution... :-)

[Star Traveler]

You were quoting ...

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.

Well..., there it is... what I was talking about.

It's in the clause ... "if any"... and in this case there were none... so no call.

If there were objections, they would have made the call, but since there were none, they did not make the call. It's in the clause, "if any"... you see... :-) -- since they have to be submitted in writing.

It makes plain enough sense to me, and it obviously made just as much sense to Vice President Dick Cheney. And you can't call this one a "partisan issue" since Vice President Dick Cheney is a Republican and he had the ability, by his mere position there -- to "make the call" -- and he didn't.

It's obvious that he saw it the same way that I'm seeing it... (or he would have made the call).

[ReignOfError]

But if the GOP manages to get a simple majority in both houses in 2010, he’ll virtually be a lame duck for two years.

Just like Clinton was for six, right?

[dirtman]

Yeah, Joe Biden would be funny a President. But it would be even more hilarious if Obama, Biden and Pelosi could not serve - President Robert “Sheets” Byrd.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

There were at least a half dozen cases where a clear defination of Natural born was given in Supreme court cases.

You can cite all the cases you want and it doesn't mean that there is not a dispute on this understanding. Just the fact that you are talking about it and I'm talking about it -- shows that there's a dispute in this understanding.

And it goes beyond just an Internet forum talking about it (which actually means nothing, legally speaking... LOL ...) -- and it's that legal people take positions on this, from opposing sides.

The mere fact that you've got two opposing legal sides is -- all by itself -- reason enough for courts to render a decision.

I find it to be really hilarious for one said to say that "there's no dispute" and that "it's plainly understood" and that "precedent is unmistakeble" -- and yet -- still find those opposing it on legal grounds.

BUT, further, what is more hilarious for those taking the position that this is irrefutable and unmistakeable -- is, very simply -- these facts... that Obama was a candidate, that he was elected, and that he is in office and that he still remains in office (not being removed by any legal/court decisions).

It's obvious that it's not so irrefutable, given that scenario.

And that's plainly why it's going to take a Supreme Court decision to put an end to this discussion.

BUT, do I figure that all talking and discussing about it will end on all forums on the Internet -- no! LOL ...

I've seen, that no matter what a legal situation is, no matter what a law is, no matter what is done -- there will always be those on the other side opposing it.

So, I'm under no illusion that all discussion on this issue will stop... :-) ...

But, I'm also under no illusion that any talking about it on an Internet forum is going to get Obama out of office, either... LOL

---

So bottom line from a law enforcement point of view no evidence(birth certificate) no case.

That sounds like the situation, too... in addition to it being disputed, legally speaking.

So, for all practical concerns, I don't ever expect to see Obama out of office on this basis. It's only going to happen in a political way, by way of voting out of office or by finishing off his terms in office.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

I don't completely disagree with you, but I have to point out that you didn't respond to anything I said in Post #97.

Well, I don't think they're important or relevant right now. But, I'll tell you when I will think it's important and relevant... that's when you ping me to the case in which there is a order from a court to show a birth certificate.

But, even then, if I see that happening... I also go back to the fact that the State of Hawaii has provided an official statement saying that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.

That means to me, when that same department prints out the "certified copy" of the birth certificate, you can be assured it's going to show Obama being born in Hawaii...

So, even that will be sort of anti-climactic... :-)

---

... I think that there is more than one legal way to compel production of a birth certificate. I still think that I am correct about that.

Oh..., I think there are other reasons for a person being required to produce a birth certificate in some court cases. For sure... that's entirely possible.

BUT, here is where courts are going to be "on the lookout" for this to happen. If they see that some "other case" is being "contrived" solely and only for the purpose of just "getting to the birth certificate" -- I believe judges are going to "shoot them down" immediately.

However, if there is "some case" in which it develops on its own, and it's not connected to the candidate not producing his birth certificate -- but it's a case that stands good on its own, and "that particular case" has a good reason for showing a birth certificate -- then -- there is a chance of getting one produced.

I think the judges and the legal system -- right now -- is well aware of a bunch of people trying to do "end runs" around the fact that a candidate is not legally required to show his birth certificate. They're going to be ready to shoot those cases down, if they are "contrived" for that particular reason.