Obviously you do not understand the Constitution to not grasp that a President is the legal President once given the oath of office, regardless of how he was elected. When a Supreme Court judge swears him in he is the LEGAL PRESIDENT.
Equally, that the House has the authority to unseat a House member certainly under the circumstances you described. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the President.
I plainly explained the role Congress has in certifying or not certifying the results of the Electoral College and their power over any President stops there except if they impeach him and the Senate convicts.
There is no point in continuing if you are having too much trouble understanding those explanations. Keep on living in dreamland, where facts don’t really hinder your thinking.
First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such.And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.
SNIP
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
When a Supreme Court judge swears him in he is the LEGAL PRESIDENT.
Wrong
10 Interesting Things You Should Know About Inauguration Day
http://history1900s.about.com/od/fadsfashion/a/inauguration.htm
Although it is not stipulated in the Constitution, it has become a tradition to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court be the oath giver to the President on inauguration day. This, surprisingly, is one of the few traditions of inauguration day not begun by George Washington, who had the Chancellor of New York Robert Livingston give him his oath (Washington was sworn in at Federal Hall in New York). John Adams was the first President to have a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swear him in.
This is totally bull-shit.
The Twentieth Amendment, Section Three REQUIRES that the "President-elect" provide proof of his/her eligibility to Congress, or Congress is instructed to name a replacement. The eligibility requirements listed in Article Two clearly state that NO PERSON who does not meet the eligibility requirements can be President.
No Person doesn't allow for someone who "fails to qualify" under the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three, either because he/she wasn't eligible or because Congress didn't do their duty by enforcing it. If he/she is not eligible, he/she can NEVER serve as a legal President no matter how many corrupt judges swear him/her in.
What you are saying is that if someone gets away with murder, murder becomes legal. What you are refusing to say is that we have a usurpation of the office of President.