You miss the point: If they have any doubt then they have no business affirming him!
They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the popular vote or the electoral college or the politically expedient.
The people and their electors decide upon the candidates' qualifications.
Factually incorrect: the Constitution plainly sets the qualifications for President. -- Everyone in America could vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger and it would not change the fact that he is not qualified to be president because he is foreign-born.
Anyone can have some doubt about whether any of our presidents were constitutionally qualified. You and I do not know for certain where any of them were born or the identity of any of their parents.
What we do know:
(1) Whether qualified or not, all of our past presidents were in fact presidents of the United States, just as Obama is in fact president of the United States; and
(2) Aside from the 25th Amendment, the Constitution provides for only one legal way to remove a president from office - impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
The courts cannot remove a sitting president for any reason. It's not their job.
Despite the clarity of those provisions, Orly and her fans continue to berate the court for refusing to remove from office a sitting president. She has become a judicial stalker, persistently demanding that courts ignore the Constitution and confer upon themselves powers that they do not have.
By the way, in Iran, all candidates for president must be approved by a Council of Guardians. Our system is not like that. We let the people decide.
Whatever the circumstances of Obama’s Article II, Section 1 eligibility, he is the President and he can only be removed from office via impeachment or resignation. That is one reason why the Supreme Court has denied every one of 24 appeals and applications for stays or injunctions in Obama eligibility actions.
The 12th Amendment states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “shall be the president.” At the very least, Obama’s possession of the office makes him a legally valid “de facto officer.” Every time Congress sends him a bill to sign into law or confirms his nominees, they are reinforcing his de facto officer status.
“De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.
The following is case law defining the term De Facto Officer. ‘An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised:
First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be;
Second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like;
Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;
Fourth, under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such.’”
Everyone in America could vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger and it would not change the fact that he is not qualified to be president because he is foreign-born.
First, the American people are not going to unanimously vote for Arnold to be president. However, if he were to run for office and argue that he was actually born in the U.S. and if, after hearing the pro and con arguments about his true place of birth and qualifications, the American people decided in favor his being qualified and if he then had a majority of electors vote for him, he could become president. And, if he thus became president, his removal would require impeachment.
Count the "ifs" in that last paragraph. Try to stay in the real world. The people and their electors are allowed to consider and decide questions of qualification even if you think they sometimes make mistakes. Presumably, they will make some mistakes, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court should disregard the Constitution and try to remove a sitting president. That is clearly the sole power of the Congress.