Court Can Remove Ineligible Obama, Says Lawyer In CA Appeal; and, Marching On Washington

Follow up on: 'Unproven-President' Obama Says, For First Time, 'Don't Question My Citizenship' 2-4-10 [see post]
***
Courts can remove ineligible chief executive

Precedent cited in appeal of California challenge to president's tenure

In the United States, courts can, in fact, remove a chief executive officer of a government if that officer is found to be ineligible, according to a court precedent cited in an appeal of a California lawsuit that challenges Barack Obama's legitimacy in the White House.

Now in an appeal of a state court case in California that named as a defendant California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation is arguing that there already are two precedents that should be applied: one in a court case in which state officials removed from the ballot a nominee for president simply because he did not meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements...

The other is a court precedent in which the governor of North Dakota was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution's eligibility requirements. .

The president's lawyers in many of the cases [brought so far] have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don't have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution's provision that president's must be removed by impeachment, which rests with Congress . . . But the issue, however, already has been adjudicated by courts, and the resolution is that courts do have the authority to review eligibility and even remove an ineligible chief executive, the appeal brief cites.

...the appellants have standing in the case because court precedent states "a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival … on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances of prevailing."

"Keyes … and Drake … have been injured because they did not have fair competition for the office," the pleading states.

While the dispute has "significant political overtones," it is, nonetheless, "an issue which the court can make a determination on, because the requirements are clearly stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, of the U.S. Constitution and courts routinely decide questions of law and of fact such as the issue in this case."
***
see also: BIRTH CERTIFICATE MARCH ON WASHINGTON

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/03/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States announces “Birth Certificate March on Washington” demanding Obama resign as President as he is “Constitutionally ineligible” to be President.

Berg is requesting all citizens of the United States to email, fax or mail a “copy” of their Birth Certificate that will be presented to Obama demanding that Obama resign because he has failed to produce his long form [vault] Birth Certificate to show he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President... “Then, we will be preparing them to deliver to Obama demanding that he resign from the Office of President as he has not proven that he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President" [no date for the march is given]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility is still a live wire...here now is 'standing', and apparent court authority to act apart from Congress. In adition to this, numerous other cases remain active and more are pending. Marching on Washington - civil unrest? Perfect storm for 'constitutional crisis' forming? It shall be seen. Stay tuned