How to remove a US president?

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?

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

What can I tell you? In lawsuit after lawsuit, courts have dismissed the claims of plaintiffs challenging Obama’s eligibility because “plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The “...relief can be granted” section means courts can’t overturn the results of elections.

The stauatory process of challenging the certification of the electoral votes in Congress is available for any and all objections including eligibility. Any two members of Congress could have triggered an investigation in each House of Congress into whether Obama was eligible to receive Electoral College votes from any state or not.
Since Congress and the chief election official in each state, usually the Secrtary of State didn’t do their job, the courts have been reluctant to step in and do the job for them.
If a paleo-conservative Secretary of State were to file suit saying that Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic National Committee and/or the Obama campaign submitted forged or fraudulent documents to get on the ballot, that state’s chief election official MIGHT have standing to sue in a court, but none have taken that step.

Thank you for that response.
It is good to read your public statement that you are emphatically not pro-Obama. On that basis, I may have misinterpreted your writings. (What remains is to help you sort out your thinking {;^))

Lets agree on the issue.
The history of this controversy including O’s specific actions, and the substantial national outcry both prior to the election and now, squarely raise the issue of whether O was properly qualified as a candidate for the office; and, if not, whether he is indeed qualified by the terms of the Constitution to hold the office.
Even without the outcry, an answer to that question should be of the highest national concern.

After O certified at the state level he was eligible, the burden shifted to others to verify such, both at the state level and finally during the Joint Session. During the Session, the burden was on each member of Congress, who with ample notice of the public controversy had a duty to defend the Constitution, no matter the member’s political inclinations!

Nothing in the record suggests verification at any level. Specifically, the duty to verify was presented at each level and ignored.

Re your statement: “I don’t think there are any ‘quick fixes’ like some are trying to get.”

That may be correct, given the fix ultimately entails political action at the Congressional level.

So the underlying question is how to timely bring the issue to the attention of Congress while the issue is yet relevant.
Some believe that of the possible remedies, litigation or political, some remedies are more promising and more timely than others. And that is the essence of my #150 upthread.

Darnnit! Just when I thought there was hope of rehabilitating you.
(Apologize for jumping in here El Gato.)

The “certificates and papers” you refer to in your #276 refer to the submittals of the Electoral College. That has nothing to do with the statutory obligation of the chair to call for objections.

Meanwhile, per your post upthread we are waiting for you to provide any statutory authority for any required advance submittal of written objections relevant to the call provided in 3 USC 15.

Challenging eligibility isn’t about challenging electoral votes. That’s where you got derailed. No surprise.

If I’ve been “derailed” why is President Obama in Afghanistan today meeting with President Karzai in Kabul and addressing our troops at Bagram Air Field?
I think we’re all well aware of which side of this issue has been “derailed” over and over and over and over....

Because he’s fooled a lot of very gullible people. We’ve been over this several times. You’re trying to make a circular argument that being president means you must be eligible. The premise is false. Don’t make this so easy.

There’s no “fooling gullible people” involved at all. Obama’s attorneys and (since Election Day) Department of Justice Attorneys have submitted legal briefs stating their legal positions on these issues and judges and justices all the way to the US Supreme Court have read those briefs, reviewed those issues and ruled against every single plaintiff. “Gullibility” has absolutely nothing to do with judicial rulings.

There is nothing the least bit “circular” about historical fact. There are two constitutionally mandated steps to being the duly elected president: (1)certification of the winning candidate’s electoral votes (12th Amendment); and (2) taking the oath of office at the swearing in ceremony o (Article 2, Section 1). With regard to Barack Hussein Obama II, Vice President Cheney fulfilled requirement one and Chief Justice Roberts fulfilled requirement two.

The Constitution says not one word about removing an allegedly ineligible person once their Electoral College votes have been certified and they have been sworn in. The constitutional process to remove a president is impeachment by the House and conviction in a trial by the Senate for high crimes and misdeameanors.

There have been 74 legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility thus far. None has succeeded and the vast majority have been dismissed on justiciability grounds for lack of standing. The fact that no plaintiff who might possibly have standing has bothered to sue, enter any existing suit as co-plaintiff or even file an amicus brief in support of any lawsuit says it all to me.

The legal brief focused on standing not eligibility. They know better than to make a claim they can't support.

Under the 25th Amendment:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Keep reading. Once the president sends his written declaration that he is fit to return to duty, Congress must assemble within 48 hours and take up the question within 21 days. The president resumes office unless 2/3 of both houses of Congress vote otherwise. So it's not really an end run around impeachment.

The legal brief focused on standing not eligibility. They know better than to make a claim they can’t support.

The legal brief? I hope that was a typo because there have been many different legal briefs from various defendants. There’s been different briefs in each Obama eligibility lawsuit and for each appeal depending on what causes of action the various plaintiffs sought to bring.
For example, I remember the very first Obama eligibility suit to reach the US Supreme Court, “Berg v Obama”. Many on the anti-Obama side were convinced that Justice Souter had given Obama a date certain to show his birth ceritificate. In reality Justice Souter had given Obama’s attorneys a date certain to respond to the Berg complaint. Obama’s attorneys chose not to respond at all. They submitted no brief to Justice Souter in defense of Obama. In effect, that was saying “we trust you Justice Souter to take this case to conference and if you and three other justices choose to take it on, that’s fine with us.”

We all now know that Berg v Obama did not find four justices willing to hear it and the petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied without any input from Obama or his lawyers.

What you’re saying reinforces my point that Obama’s lawyers have made no claims about Obama’s eligibility. They know better than to make a claim they can’t support. Thanks for falling on the sword yet again.

You’re welcome, I’m glad that I could help!
However, just so you know, the way the American system of jurisprudence works is that the plaintiff has to prove his/her case, not the defendant.
In the only actual adjudication of Obama’s status as a natural born citizen thus far, “Ankeny et. al. v Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana,” Obama wasn’t named as the defendant and therefore it was the Attorney General of Indiana who made the claims of his eligibility not Obama’s lawyers. The judges of the Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with the Attorney General and they dismissed the lawsuit.
But I’m sure that hope springs eternal!

However, just so you know, the way the American system of jurisprudence works is that the plaintiff has to prove his/her case, not the defendant.

I never said otherwise.

In the only actual adjudication of Obama’s status as a natural born citizen thus far, “Ankeny et. al. v Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana,” Obama wasn’t named as the defendant and therefore it was the Attorney General of Indiana who made the claims of his eligibility not Obama’s lawyers.

The defendant in that case did not make a claim that Obama was eligible. Again, they knew better. Instead they relied on a circular argument (i.e., the case has already been decided and/or dismised elsewhere, but they make no claim of whether Obama was ever found to be eligible).

But I’m sure that hope springs eternal!

Of course. It only takes one honest court to do the right thing.

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...

I think the public statements mean somewhat more to you than they should.

The state of Hawaii has officially stated that they have a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) on file. I believe that at least one official has declared in parallel with this statement that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

But the fact remains that something is being covered up. There are too many things wrong with the digital document originally posted by Obama on fightthesmears.com. All the Birthers want to see is whether Hawaii's COLB really has Hawaii as the place of birth. This is matter of due diligence on our part.

BTW, I have traveled outside the U.S., and I frequently ask foreign citizens where the U.S. President was born. They frequently look at me in a funny way and say "You don't even know?. He was born in Kenya. This is widely known. Why are you Americans so ignorant?"

They would say this about you and me both, but whether they are right or wrong, I think it is interesting that they would say it especially about you.:)

(Of course, almost none of the overseas folks I have talked to are aware of our Constitutional requirement that the POTUS be a natural-born citizen. This is true in the UK, the Middle East, and Indonesia. I have also talked to people from France and Germany who state matter-of-factly that Obama was born in Kenya and do not realize that this is a matter of any Constitutional controversy.

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.

I almost agree with you on these points. But you have misstated a point in the process of making the point that I agree with.

You keep talking about the fact that a candidate is not legally required to show his birth certificate. What you should have said is that there is no statute that automatically requires the production of the document and that the Constitution does not require such production.

Fine. This is what I told Ouderkirk. But much of our legal system is not clearly and directly statutory. You actually admit as much when you point out that if an (honest, courageous) Federal judge concludes that the evidence in a given Birther lawsuit is real and serious and that the plaintiff has standing for the case, then Obama can be legally compelled to produce the vault copy.

I guess what I am ultimately saying is that, although the 9/11 Truthers are idiots, the Birthers are not.

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.

Actually, the Constitution requires that the POTUS be a natural-born U.S. citizen, not merely that a candidate for POTUS be a natural-born U.S. citizen.

And the argument that no one has standing now, the notion that standing is long gone, is not necessarily correct. At least one Federal judge did rule that a military officer had standing.

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.