If he is ineligible, he's not the President, by definition. Thus impeachment would not be needed nor be permissible.
Since he would no be President, no one would or should follow his orders. Any laws he signs would not be valid because they were not signed by the President.
How much of that would be retroactive, is another question.
If he is ineligible, he’s not the President, by definition. Thus impeachment would not be needed nor be permissible.
Since he would no be President, no one would or should follow his orders. Any laws he signs would not be valid because they were not signed by the President.
How much of that would be retroactive, is another question.
None of the Courts that have read legal briefs on this issue have agreed with your interpretation and at least one federal judge has rendered a decision that is exactly the oppposite:
“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 PROCESSS 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