Sorry, but this is plainly false. Historical precdent from the SCOTUS itself makes it clear that Obama would be ineligible to hold office. Thank you Wong Kim Ark.
Sorry, but this is plainly false. Historical precdent from the SCOTUS itself makes it clear that Obama would be ineligible to hold office. Thank you Wong Kim Ark.
About ten different lower courts have ruled that once a presidential candidate’s name is on ballots and once that person receives Electoral College votes, wins a majority of the Electoral College votes, has those votes certified by the Vice President of the United States in his/her role as President of the Senate without any written objections from two members of Congress (one Representative and one Senator) and is sworn in on Inauguration Day, that person IS the President of the United States according to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. The ONLY ways to remove a sitting president from office are via impeachment and via trial plus conviction in the Senate or via resignation.
Here’s what a recent judge in an Obama eligibility lawsuit had to say:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009
Nowhere in the Constitution is the judiciary given the power to remove a sitting president from office. Only Congress can do that.
The judiciary can declare a candidate to be ineligible and can force that person’s name off ballots.
It is likely that a losing candidate in the general election WOULD be granted legal standing to sue an illegal candidate who won the popular vote. It is even possible that the losing Vice Presidential candidate and the losing political party’s national committee could be granted standing to sue on behalf of their injured candidates.
At the joint session of Congress to count and certify Electoral votes, members of the opposition party can challenge the certification of an ineligible president-elect’s Electoral College votes and force an immediate investigation. The opposition party could also seek a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the swearing in ceremony for an illegal president-elect.
Once a President-Elect assumes the office of President, a Grand Jury investigation gathering evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors has always been used in American history to lay the groundwork for impeachment or to force the resignation of a sitting president who is indicted. It was the original Arkansas Whitewater Grand Jury that eventually led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Fiske and then Judge Kenneth Starr which led to the Clinton impeachment.
It was the original Watergate Grand Jury investigation that led to the eventual naming of Richard Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator and forced Nixon’s resignation as President. Civil suits will not remove a president from office, criminal indictments certainly will.