Obama could be removed by his own signature

Obama could be removed by his own signature

By: Devvy, July 22, 2011

My recent column, Why Obama Can't be Impeached, brought an avalanche of email with many questions. In particular, someone wanted to know if hypothetically, Barry Soetoro aka Obama, committed treason by selling sensitive military secrets, could he be charged with treason? The putative president is a civilian and can be indicted by a federal grand jury. If enough evidence exists, he could be tried and convicted. But, as someone who has usurped the office of the president, he cannot be impeached for the same crime since he does not legally occupy the office.
 
He clearly is guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. §1343, the federal wire fraud statute, which typically carries a penalty of at least 20 years. As a civilian, he can be indicted and tried in federal court.
Question about the oath of office ceremony. As Barry clearly has known all along he was never eligible, when he took the oath of office, he committed perjury - twice. We can all remember, there was a second 'swearing in' due to Chief Justice John Robert's tripping over his tongue. But, was there more to it?
 
At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the putative president paid a 'protocol' visit to the Supreme Court, January 14, 2009. The visit was private behind closed doors with no media. At that time, Roberts had cases on the docket where Obama was the defendant or was the subject of pending litigation.
 
On a Wednesday, Roberts meets with the man at the heart of that case in private. Two days later, he sits down to discuss the case with the other justices after having a closed door meeting with the defendant! Also pending at the time was the Lightfoot v Bowen case to be heard in conference, January 23, 2009. Chief Justice Roberts sat in that private meeting to discuss whether the case should go to oral arguments; it did not. Does anyone see major conflict of interest here?
 
Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate. Roberts should have notified the "president elect" that under the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, period. There must be zero appearance of any bias or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.
 
The number one goal in seeing the putative president removed from office is that his "presidency" not be legitimized. Impeaching him would do just that. Any investigation of Barry's crimes would have to go through the U.S. Department of Justice. A conundrum to be sure.  If the usurper is removed because he is clearly ineligible, so goes Eric Holder, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayer, every other judicial appointment now confirmed and every bill he has signed into 'law'.
 
The Outlaw Congress accepted the electoral college vote instead of invoking House rules and initiating an investigation. Not one of the 535 members stood up for the U.S. Constitution that day. They (including Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul) are responsible for this severe constitutional crisis that at some point will reach critical mass.
 
Is there any other way the putative president could be removed from office other than a quo warranto action? Mario Apuzzo, is an attorney who has been representing plaintiffs in cases involving the putative president's ineligibility. Mario has raised the issue of standing, a judicial hallucination, in a case, Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, June 16, 2011 [emphasis mine]:

"Applying the Bond decision to a case challenging Obama's eligibility, one would have to be criminally charged or be compelled to pay money under a statute passed by Congress when Obama was President. One would argue that under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, laws passed by Congress need the action or inaction of the President (the veto power) before they are allowed to become laws. This requirement satisfies separation of powers and checks and balances doctrine. One would argue that Congress passed the charging statute, with the President's action or inaction. One would argue that a legitimate President must satisfy the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which contains the "natural born Citizen" clause. Then one would argue that the law is not valid because it never was presented to a legitimate President for consideration under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, arguing that Obama is not a legitimate President because he does not meet the requirements of the "natural born Citizen" clause..."

Dr. Edwin Vieira raised this very remedy way back in Dec. 2008:

"For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign—such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they “cling.”

"For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the Clinton “assault-weapons ban” (or some equally obnoxious affront to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and the Second Amendment), the defendant will undeniably have “standing” to challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such a ban even exists, because the original “Bill which passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” was never “presented to the President of the United States”, and therefore could never “become a Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains thereafter nothing but an usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and Article II, Section 1, 4]

"Plainly, a criminal trial arising under a supposed law of the United States is a “Case” to which “the judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend”; and the defense as well will raise a specific issue “arising under th[e] Constitution, [and] the Laws of the United States.” [Article III, Section 2, Clause 1] The defendant will be suffering serious “injury in fact:” namely, a criminal indictment and a compulsory trial, with the possibility of a conviction, imprisonment, and, if the infraction is called a “felony,” the forfeiture of many civil rights even after his release from incarceration. The prosecutor on one side and the defendant on the other will be adversaries espousing diametrically opposed and irreconcilable positions—so the “Case” cannot be deemed in any way collusive. The purported statute's invalidity by virtue of its legal nonexistence will be “ripe” for decision, because the statute is the basis for the indictment, and its invalidity the foundation of the defense to the charge. And, unless and until the prosecutor importunes the court to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, the issue of the putative statute's legal nonexistence and inapplicability to the defendant will be anything but moot."

Obama/Soetoro's legal day of reckoning is coming and his downfall could come by his own signature.