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.’”
So then, let's play a game: Imagine I go out to the PX grab me some rank and insert myself into the command of a sizable group of soldiers. Now suppose that I issue orders to my men to forcibly shut down the invasion in AZ, lethal force and all, under the Constitutional authorization of Art 4, Sec 4.
Would following my orders condemn my men? Myself? (Take into consideration the stances of the political caste & their willingness to 'overlook' rules/regulations/laws.) Yes or no? Explain your answer.