Somehow, I am not able to assist you in gaining some understanding that nothing you think, or I think or the whole country may think is ever going to roll back the damages this President has done by declaring him ineligible to hold the office..... he was sworn in and holds the office.
I doubt if the Constitution has any direct specific clause regarding “legal President once sworn in” , that among a million other things is a matter of Law and interpretation. As you copied and pasted, the Constitution addresses eligibility, but never gives any recourse if eligibility is ignored and Electoral College vote is certified without objection, similarly with no definition of NBC. It most distinctly outlines the only course of action Congress may take in removing a President from office, impeachment. I think the Founders just assumed that no one would try to slip under the fence of eligibility and that potential Presidents would be honorable patriotic persons.
Under your thinking of he being not legal, he might not be subject even to impeachment. Wouldn’t that be a pickle if no one had any authority to remove him? Which of course is a ludicrous as your thinking on his legal Presidential status.
All this leads right back to my point that Congress and/or the States need to address this lack of clarity and lack of recourse on eligibility to prevent any similar occurrences in the future. Can we agree on that point?
That’s rich. I give you the Constitution and a well sourced eloquent and articulate article that you couldn’t even bother to read.
You’ve stated that once the oath is given, a usurper magically becomes legal. PROVE IT.
I want passages from the Constitution. Not YOUR opinion.
This was modified by U.S. Const. amend. XXV, § 1 which specifies that the Vice President shall become President when a vacancy occurs for "Removal from office" (impeachment), "Death", "Resignation".
The "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of office" is addressed by §§ 3, 4 of the Amendment whereby the President or the "Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" may give a written declaration that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office"
Death is beyond human control, Resignation is the act of a President, Impeachment is an action performed by Congress (U.S. Const. art. II, § 4) and is inherently political. Impeachment is not criminal, nor does it affect criminal liability:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." U.S. Const. art. I, § 3 (emphasis added)Criminal conviction, regardless of Impeachment, would result in the "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of office".
Another inability would be ineligibility. Article II's non-discretionary imperative "shall" requires a natural born citizen.
In these cases the Vice President and such other body as Congress may by law provide may give a written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
Amend XII consolidates partisan power over the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. There is a nasty interaction between Amend XII and Amend XXV, § 4 which gives a political faction a lock on power. Does any one believe that a partisan extremist such as Biden would perform in any way other than as a partisan?
That Inability should result in the Vice President immediately assuming the powers and duties of the office as Acting President, can not be doubted. Perhaps this would entice dufus maximus Biden. He would be a lame duck, so don't fret too much. The foreign usurper must be prosecuted and punished according to law. Congress and the Vice President can then declare an Inability on the part of an imprisoned ineligible foreign criminal Soetoro aka Obama. The Office does not protect him from criminal liability for fraud or espionage.
In one of the earliest eligibility challenges, a federal judge explained the Constituitional process. This eligibility challenge went to the Supreme Court of the United States but it was denied a hearing.
The original trial court judge said:
“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.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
No court decision and no act of Congress has found Obama ineligible or ruled that he did not qualify for office. There have been 207 adjudicated eligibility challenges to Obama. None have found him ineligible.
In 2012 there were 50 legal challenges to his eligibility to be on the ballot in 22 states plus the District of Columbia. Every challenge was unsuccessful.
Several court rulings have explicitly stated that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen. For example:
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.”
Both Houses of Congress have sent Obama scores of bills to sign into law and the Senate has confirmed hundreds of Obama nominees.
Under the De Facto Offcer Doctrine, at the very least, Obama is the 44th President of the United States.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-officer/