No..., what I’m asking here (and it can be for anyone) is a simple question to find out the *effect* of one thing that people here have said will have a major effect.
I was wondering if the Constitutional provisions for President of the United States were affected in any way by having a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office. Did that change the Constitution? Did people decide to ignore that provision afterwards, or did it actually change the meaning legally in some way that I don’t know about.
That would simply solve one riddle for me, as to whether it would have an effect of changing it now... So, it’s a very limited question and it doesn’t have broad implications on everything else about Obama...
1) No one has proven that we ever had a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office.
2) If we want to entertain a hypothetical that Chester A. Arthur was a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office, we could, just for grins.
3) Constitutional provisions for President of the United States are affected by Constitutional Amendments, which require 2/3 of the states to approve.
4) Having Chester A. Arthur serve as president is not the same as passing a Constitutional Amendment.
5) So, no, the Constitutional provisions for President of the United States were not affected in any way by having a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office.
That would depend on how far into the future the People found out that they were allegedly duped.
I'm still researching Arthur, but if decades passed, the people might not be as incensed over it as they might if the president were still in office when the truth were revealed.
I'm assuming that that we didn't have www.chesterarthur1885.com during his presidency (but I could be wrong).
-PJ