Obama's Ineligibility To Be President Of The U.S.

US Attorney for DC
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS
United States Attorney's Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear US Attorney Phillips:

As a Citizen of the United States of America, I have the deepest concern for the safety of our country.

The fact is that there is a need for this nation to hear and resolve the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility for office. I base this statement on the Constitutional requirement (Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States) calling for the President to retain a special status of Natural Born Citizen in order to qualify for eligibility to that office. I have reviewed the definition of Natural Born Citizen as written in the Federal Papers by Justice John Jay. This definition of citizenship goes back centuries! Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalties to become President! It is a fact that Obama was born a subject of the British Crown. He openly admits his father was a British Subject at the time of his birth.

Here are several references to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. I implore you, URGENTLY, to investigate on your own.

-1758 Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” –The Framers relied on many of the principles to write the Constitution.

-1787-1788 The Federalist Papers, including Justice John Jay’s letter to George Washington.

-Article II, Section I, United States Constitution.

-The Naturalization Act of 1790-repeal of “Natural Born” from the 1790 Act in 1795.

-The Framers of the 14th Amendment-(citizenship granted, not Natural Born Citizenship); Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Lyman Trumball define Natural Born Citizen.

-Congressional Hearing on Dual Citizenship, 2005, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” discussion .

Our Nation is at grave risk. This issue MUST be addressed. Citizens across this nation are asking this question: Is Obama qualified to be our President and Commander in Chief? The public protests are beginning. There is a significant movement and it is spreading like an impassioned grassfire. To assume it will go away is foolhardy. Furthermore, the usurpation of our Constitution threatens the very survival of our Union!

Our military is in jeopardy of becoming divided over this issue. With these lawsuits; one soldier today, another tomorrow, and now our loyal service men and woman are in personal jeopardy!

The survival of our nation is at stake. This issue will not go away.

For whatever political and historical reasons we have come to this dire situation, you are the person empowered by Congress to file a Quo Warranto on behalf of the United States. As a Natural Born Citizen myself, I implore you to PLEASE….. Issue a Quo Warranto to provide The USA citizenry an answer to this constitutionally vital question.

Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.

· The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.

· Two individuals have authority to bring quo warranto action: Attorney General Eric Holder, and US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Channing D Phillips.

· Only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto.

· The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed by the Judicial branch.

· Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting President found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute.

· Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President. The Constitution has provided congress with the authority to remove the president from office in cases other than impeachment.

o Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6. “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge…”. Note the word “or”.

o Congress is authorized to exercise removal power by the 25th Amendment – and such power must be derived directly from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.

· SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.

· Quo warranto action is proper to settle title to the office of President for the good of the nation.

· Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them to institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue.

· The best possible candidates who should request the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion are Retired Military officers who understand the absolute need for the President’s title to office not to be encumbered by doubt.

· CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, i.e. POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

I seek your immediate response to my grave concern.

US Attorney for DC
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS
United States Attorney's Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear US Attorney Phillips:

As a Citizen of the United States of America, I have the deepest concern for the safety of our country.

The fact is that there is a need for this nation to hear and resolve the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility for office. I base this statement on the Constitutional requirement (Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States) calling for the President to retain a special status of Natural Born Citizen in order to qualify for eligibility to that office. I have reviewed the definition of Natural Born Citizen as written in the Federal Papers by Justice John Jay. This definition of citizenship goes back centuries! Nowhere in history is Natural Born Citizen defined in such a way that would allow a person with divided loyalties to become President! It is a fact that Obama was born a subject of the British Crown. He openly admits his father was a British Subject at the time of his birth.

Here are several references to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. I implore you, URGENTLY, to investigate on your own.

-1758 Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” –The Framers relied on many of the principles to write the Constitution.

-1787-1788 The Federalist Papers, including Justice John Jay’s letter to George Washington.

-Article II, Section I, United States Constitution.

-The Naturalization Act of 1790-repeal of “Natural Born” from the 1790 Act in 1795.

-The Framers of the 14th Amendment-(citizenship granted, not Natural Born Citizenship); Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Lyman Trumball define Natural Born Citizen.

-Congressional Hearing on Dual Citizenship, 2005, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” discussion .

Our Nation is at grave risk. This issue MUST be addressed. Citizens across this nation are asking this question: Is Obama qualified to be our President and Commander in Chief? The public protests are beginning. There is a significant movement and it is spreading like an impassioned grassfire. To assume it will go away is foolhardy. Furthermore, the usurpation of our Constitution threatens the very survival of our Union!

Our military is in jeopardy of becoming divided over this issue. With these lawsuits; one soldier today, another tomorrow, and now our loyal service men and woman are in personal jeopardy!

The survival of our nation is at stake. This issue will not go away.

For whatever political and historical reasons we have come to this dire situation, you are the person empowered by Congress to file a Quo Warranto on behalf of the United States. As a Natural Born Citizen myself, I implore you to PLEASE….. Issue a Quo Warranto to provide The USA citizenry an answer to this constitutionally vital question.

Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.

· The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.

· Two individuals have authority to bring quo warranto action: Attorney General Eric Holder, and US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Channing D Phillips.

· Only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto.

· The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed by the Judicial branch.

· Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting President found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute.

· Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President. The Constitution has provided congress with the authority to remove the president from office in cases other than impeachment.

o Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6. “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge…”. Note the word “or”.

o Congress is authorized to exercise removal power by the 25th Amendment – and such power must be derived directly from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.

· SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.

· Quo warranto action is proper to settle title to the office of President for the good of the nation.

· Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them to institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue.

· The best possible candidates who should request the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion are Retired Military officers who understand the absolute need for the President’s title to office not to be encumbered by doubt.

· CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, i.e. POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

I seek your immediate response to my grave concern.