The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional
Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment

Posted on March 5, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

The issue of whether the President can be removed from office other than by impeachment is the single most important question presented with regard to challenging the eligibility of a sitting President.  This section of the brief contains important new information supporting the conclusions discussed in Part 1 of this legal brief .

Please understand that if the Constitution limits Congressional power to remove the President to only cases of impeachment then there is no Constitutional mechanism available to remove a President who is proved to be a usurper.  And if that's true, then the federal quo warranto statute doesn't have the power to remove a sitting President... even if it was proved beyond any doubt he was ineligible. 

The best dream team of lawyers you can draft may bring all the law suits they like for the best possible reasons in favor of the most perfectly possible plaintiffs with undeniable standing as to injury in fact and causality, but the courts do not have the authority - under the Constitution - to remove a sitting President.  Those law suits will fail and they should fail.

In order to protect the Constitution, we must not subvert the separation of powers.

If it can't be done by quo warranto, then it can't be done at all.  Why?

Because Congress is the only branch authorized by the Constitution to remove the President should he be found ineligible.  And the only court Congress has delegated that power to is the District Court of the District of Columbia, and such delegation of power is strictly limited to actions governed by the federal quo warranto statute.

If we are going to challenge eligibility to protect the Constitution, then we certainly cannot do an end around the separation of powers.  I have recognized this from the outset and that's why I tried to have the eligibility issue litigated prior to election day and then again prior to the electoral college meeting.  After the electoral college met and cast its votes for Obama, he went from being an ordinary candidate to being the President-elect.

That metamorphosis has important Constitutional consequences which cannot be ignored.  The Constitution provides that once we have a President-elect, the eligibility of that person can be challenged by Congress.  The political question doctrine kicks in at that point and the ability of any other branch to challenge for POTUS eligibility is probably nullified.  And once the President-elect is sworn in and assumes office, the Constitutional separation of powers certainly controls the issue.

Recall, Congress didn't challenge Obama's eligibility before he was sworn in, so those provisions are now moot.  And once a person is sworn in as President, the Constitution then provides specific means for removing the President from office, none of which grant such power to the Judicial Branch.  Now please consider the following two points:

1.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President.

Those who are currently petitioning the Judicial branch to challenge Presidential eligibility are seeking to subvert the Constitution.

They will argue Obama isn't legally President and so therefore the Constitutional separation of powers can be ignored.  Should a court ever accept that theory, you will have the recipe for civil war, and you will be doing more damage to the nation than you can even imagine.  Protest all you like, but the US Government recognizes his authority.

Furthermore, United States Courts all the way up to SCOTUS have refused to get involved, and this was the case before Obama was sworn in when the Judicial Branch actually did have the power to adjudicate the eligibility issue.  They punted.  Fact.

Now that Obama has taken the office of President and is officially recognized as President, no court is going to suddenly take a leap around the separation of powers by agreeing the Constitution doesn't apply to Obama as President.  That will never happen.

Let that sink in because it's true.

2.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.

Some who support Obama's eligibility will seek to subvert the Constitution by arguing that the Constitution states that the sole remedy for removing the President is impeachment.  Nowhere in the Document does it say that.  Those who believe it must "imply" or "assume" that is the case.  But the Constitution does not state that impeachment is the sole means of removing the President.

The Constitution does say that Congress has the sole authority to impeach and the Senate to convict, and that the President "shall" be removed upon conviction, but it does not say that impeachment is the sole means of removal.  You will hear people say that it does say that in the days ahead.  It is a lie.

I have uncovered a plethora of evidence - within and without the Constitution - which I strongly believe proves that the framers provided Congress with the power to remove a President who is found to be ineligible.  This makes sense because not every person who is found to be ineligible is guilty of a crime.


Two double agents born in the evil nation of "KILLAMERICASTAN" sneak a child into America over the Canadian border and later obtain false documents indicating they are US citizens and that their child was born in the United States.  The child is raised like a Manchurian Candidate and believes his parents are US citizens and that he was born in the US.  The child grows up a gifted politician and eventually becomes President.  After being sworn in, the truth is discovered by US Intelligence and proved beyond any doubt.  The President then refuses to leave office since he didn't do anything wrong and had no knowledge of the plot.

What happens?

Well, the President has done nothing to be impeached.  He's not guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanors, bribery or treason.  Did the framers leave us naked in such a situation? I don't believe so.  We will return to this shortly.


My respect for the separation of powers in our Constitution is the core reason I was so willing to drop the eligibility fight once the Electoral College met.  I understand and respect the Constitution.  And I would never further damage it by aiding a new Constitutional crisis which might help to bring our Republic down.

We must respect the separation of powers or we will lose the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.

The separation of powers argument will be the proper undoing of every single POTUS eligibility law suit running through the courts at this moment in time.  They will all fail.  And they should, because for any of them to prevail, the separation of powers would be violated.

Even in law suits where federal courts have been petitioned to request Congress investigate - by way of mandamus - Obama's eligibility (as opposed to seeking removal), the courts will dismiss on the basis of separation of powers limitations and/or subject matter jurisdiction, even if the plaintiffs were found to have passed the difficult standing tests (and that's not going to happen either).

While I respect the litigants and the efforts they have made, I take issue with some of the tactics employed and I'm also not that impressed with many of the pleadings.  I hope that, by publishing this brief, I will correct some of the previous errors and provide the public at large with the best possible education so that proper pressure can be applied to authorized Government officials.  Knowledge is power.  I seek to empower you.

Should those officials not respond, I also hope the following will act as a template for any attorneys who may wish to pursue a quo warranto petition.  This should save time and resources.

I have reached out to some of the attorneys who impressed me, but none have brought a law suit which can succeed in light of the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.


It appears there is a Constitutionally viable method available for the eligibility issue to be litigated which does not violate the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.  I strongly believe the federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutionally viable means by which a sitting President can be removed from office if found to be a usurper, whether such usurpation is intentional or unintentional.  Full details and analysis below, but first let's discuss the following:


As far as I can tell, only one attorney has filed for an actual quo warranto claim at this point in time.  Unfortunately, that attempt will fail as it was brought on behalf of private plaintiffs.  As you will see below, any action in quo warranto must be brought on behalf of the United States.  The attorney needed to first petition the Attorney General or US Attorney in DC to institute an action in quo warranto.  Additionally, that same action was brought in the wrong venue.  According to the statute, a quo warranto action to challenge the eligibility of a United States officer - whether elected or appointed - can only be brought in the District Court of the District of Columbia.

Another attorney has sent a "pre-litigation" letter to Attorney General Holder.  But the statute requires a "verified petition" be forwarded to the Attorney General and/or the US Attorney requesting consent plaintiffs be allowed to institute a quo warranto action in the name of the United States.  No such petition has been filed.

This "letter" sent to AG Holder insists he recuse himself due to an alleged conflict of interest since the Attorney General's office is the designated defender of the President.  But that is only true as to the President's official actions.  A Quo warranto dispute is not related to official activity of the President's office.  It relates to whether the President is eligible to hold the office and that is not an "official action" undertaken by the President.  The statute defines quo warranto as a civil action.  I believe the President would have to hire private counsel to defend him.

So, there's probably no legal conflict of interest requiring Eric Holder to recuse himself.  Any conflict of interest which exists is probably limited to the personal gratitude AG Holder may have for Obama since he appointed him.  But that's not the type of conflict which requires recusal.  For example, a Supreme Court Justice does not have to recuse himself in a dispute involving the President who appointed him.

It's not fair to suggest AG holder won't do his job because he owes personal allegiance to Obama.  I believe in fighting a fair fight even if others fight unfairly against me.  It's only fair that the man be given the chance to do the right thing.  Furthermore, no verified petition has even been forwarded to the Attorney General's office.

The federal quo warranto statute provides that the "United States attorney" may institute an action in quo warranto on his own motion.  The US Attorney for the District of Columbia is Jeffrey Taylor.  He was appointed to that position in 2006 by the Bush administration and certainly has no conflict of interest.  I am not aware of anybody who has contacted US Attorney Taylor in this regard.  It will only take one of those officials to bring the action, not both.


While arguments about whether the military make the best plaintiffs have been raging, the simple truth is that a quo warranto case with the best chance of success ought to be initiated with no private plaintiffs at all.  The federal quo warranto statute shows a preference for cases brought on behalf of the United States by the Attorney General or the US Attorney.  And until respectful pressure is applied to those officials, the nation is deprived of the most perfect avenue to justice.  Until this course of action is exhausted, I pray that all private attorneys briefly delay requesting consent from these officials while an effort is made to persuade them that it's in the best interests of the nation for them to proceed on their own motion.

This is not a private issue.  The controversy is raging.  Nobody can deny that.  AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor need to consider that the citizens, the military, the Government - as well as Obama himself - will all be better off once clear title to the office is established.

All the above from: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/  by naturalborncitizen

Back to the Patriots Page

Patriots Page: ARCHIVES # 1

The ads shown here
may not necessarily
represent our views,
but you should
certainly feel free
to visit them
if you wish.

Visit the Patriots Page
Visit the Made in USA Search Engine

These pages are developed by J. R. Beaman - Web Master at - The WWWeb Factory
On-Line July 4th, 1996 - © All Rights Reserved - Member HTML Writers Guild
Be sure to clear your memory and disk cache, as our pages may change daily!
Products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered
trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders.