[KenyanBCPunkster]

If he had been voted/hired as, for instance, a University chancellor or some other prestigious and responsible position, and it were proved later that his entire resume was false, and he was not who he claimed to be, he could be fired on the spot. And then, of course, arrested.

It’s no different with 0bama.

But it is different. The office of university chancellor isn't covered by the Constitution of the United States. The office of President is.

The Constitution clearly states that the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall only be removed from office upon impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The Constitution also clearly states that the House shall have the sole power of impeachment, and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments.

[Red Steel]

It’s no different with 0bama.

The difference: If it is proven Obama did not qualify for presidential office, as a consequence, he could be removed without impeachment and Senate trial.

[little jeremiah]

You can repeat that as often as you like, but it refers to actual Presidents that were eligible for office and committed some malfeasance during their presidency.

0bozo is not eligible in the first place.

Different; very different.

He’s going to be revealed, and all those who cling to his coattails and/or helped with his coverups will be brought down as well.

Nixon was brought down for a teensy fraction of what 0bozo has done. Microscopic fraction.

[El Gato]

The Constitution clearly states that the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall only be removed from office upon impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Which of those is "not eligible to the office"?

And it says "President", not ineligible usurper.