I think the jury is till out on that one. But getting through the entire qualification process first is much more important at this point.
The federal register is not in the Constitution. To me, the twelfth Amendment makes a joint session of Congress the sole arbitrator. All the USC does is attempt to set forth the applicable procedure. But the decision is up to a joint session under the twelfth Amendment.
In January of 2009 and again in January of 2013, they relied on certificates from political officers that the guy with the greatest number of votes was eligible. Mistake of fact. Procedural error.
We have a long line of US Supreme Court decisions that eligibility to hold office is different from procedural error--it overrides everything; a person who is not eligible does not hold the office no matter what the procedure.
So to fix this, it seems to me, takes a joint session of Congress which I think the R's can do with a majority vote if they don't get there for some other reason.
More hookers in Twelfth Amendment.
The only power in Congress to elect a different vote getter than the guy who got more electoral votes comes "if no person has a majority of the electors". Barry did. Therefore the joint session who reopens the eligibility issue could not proceed to choose Romney.
Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment seems pretty clear. it speaks in terms of the person elected having "qualified" however there are only a two sets of qualification descriptions for service in the office of President and Vice President and they are set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
The second: You can't serve as president until you have taken the oath the words of which are specified. The first: No person is eligible to hold the office who is not a natural born citizen who has attained the age of thirty-five years who has resided in the US for fourteen years.
So when you have a guy who is not a citizen at all even under the looser test (than the 14th Amendment) of adopted citizenship law, you have a lot of difficulty thinking that the Supreme Court would hold he was Natural Born.
So back to the twentieth Amendment--Congress gets to a joint session; designates a Special Joint Judiciary Committee at that joint session to investigate and determine the facts of whether or not the guy who got the most electoral votes was eligible--that's not in the Constitution but a joint session would have the power to do that; no limits on who that committee is but politically, it would be most credible if it were representative of the whole in terms of Dems and R's--the R's have 60% of the total members of both House and Senate--they get 60% of the members of the committee. Probably wise to have both House Members and Senate members. Fix a date for the Committee to report it's findings and then adjourn to a time certain to hear the report and decide the elections.
My guess is you don't get the R's enough courage to do this until they have either an original or attested copy of the hospital birth file believed to be that of Barry. It likely has a much different name on it than the name Barry is now using so someone who has some idea of how the persons named as mother and father got to be the actual parents of Barry would presumably testify to how that got to be the case.
That file will have an original footprint.
You then prove conclusively by getting a print from Barry under evidentary circumstances (so you know you got the real thing) to compare with the print in the birth file. When they match, you have proven where Barry really came from and have a factual basis on which to reach a legal conclusion on his eligibility status.
Barry refuses to give the print? Just like Slick Willie and the dress. If you refuse the print, we are going to determine it is you without the print. Barry will either provide or stipulate that the print is his.
Your Special Judiciary will find the facts and render a legal opinion on the eligibility issue. Assume it returns as expected, the Joint Session vacates Barry's elections in 2013 and 2009.
I don't see any real appeal of a decision from this process. One might occur and there is a theoretical basis on which that could happen. But I wouldn't expect the Court to reverse the decision either.
Under the 20th Amendment, Congress has failed to designate an eligible person by the beginning of the presidential term so the Vice President serves as acting President.
Congress might well have the power to designate a President under these circumstances. The Amendment contemplates it might well do so.
I would speculate that is not going to happen and that Joe would serve out the remainder of the term. No reason to designate a Vice President for Joe--not in his interest nor in the interest of the R's who run Congress at that point; so if Joe doesn't serve out his term, the Speaker is successor.