What don’t you get about “shall not act as President...”?
If a President failed to take the oath of office he would not be able to act as President. The oath of office is a prerequisite for being able to take up the duties of the office.
Same thing holds true for QUALIFYING. According to the 20th Amendment, until he actually qualifies (meets the Constitutional requirements, which include the political things at the state level such as getting the electoral votes, the political things at the federal level such as being certified as the winner, and the NON-POLITICAL things at the federal level such as meeting the age, residency, and citizenship requirements of Article I)) he cannot take up the duties of the office REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE IS TECHNICALLY THE PRESIDENT. A person can be a President and still not be able to do any of the duties of the office.
Do you understand? If not, what don’t you get about this? It’s not rocket science.
But your manner indicates that all you will do is flame and repeat the same stuff over and over. That’s what trolls do.
I’m done feeding you.
We have had this argument before, and even before that. You simply can’t grasp it, or pretend not to to suit your own agenda.
1. Is Obama president of the United States?
2. How can he be constitutionally removed from office?
Now, like in the past, you’ll obfuscate and write erratically about some theory that if he wasn’t qualified, the election certification and the act of taking the oath of office don’t count and magically somebody hooks him off stage.
And I say: If Obama was presented on the ballots, won the electoral vote, which was certified by Congress, then sworn into office, then he was qualified and is President, and if assertions become true that he isn’t eligible, He can only be removed by impeachment — an act exclusive to Congress.
But that’s all theory, you or the Birthers in general have not ever proven to the public (and assertions of truth are not proven) that Obama is ineligible.