Posted on 10/09/2009 8:53:20 AM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore
If Obama is eventually impeached because he really was born in Kenya, then would everything that he signed into law also become null? I also don't see Obama ever really being impeached unless the GOP as well as conservatives in general actually have a supermajority of Congressional politicians in place after mid-January '11.
My point was, if zero is not a “natural born citizen”,(Article 2, Section 1) then he “shall have failed to qualify” under the 20th, and is therefore not POTUS in the first place. IMO, that makes every piece of paper he has signed, and every official action he has taken null and void.
People always forget it's not the impeachment that counts, it's the conviction in the Senate that matters.
You really think that would happen?
True
Forgive me for questioning anyone’s hope that this national nightmare could end before 2012, but I hope you’re not staying awake at night, dreaming of this scenario to become a reality. Look at what we all went through when a proven sexual harrasser, abuser of power, liar to investigators and the American people, misogynistic POS of a POTUS was caught with his pants down....ain’t gunna happen! (But we can always hope...)
He is until he isn’t.
I will not play word games with people.
Statements like this makes this site look like it is full of “crazies” and “whackos”.
If, and until, a court rules on this, or Congress impeaches him, the President is the President.
I would prefer he wasn’t, but it is what it is.
I’m not playing a word game. That’s the law.
That’s correct. Two Presidents have been impeached. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither were convicted.
Why would they do that?
In your opinion. However, there are precedents for dealing with such situations. Me, imo, I prefer letting the VALID holder of the office — whether that is Cheney, Biden, Pelosi, McCain, Palin or Byrd is debatable, but it would be one of them — act as a special master in making the determination as to whether the law or order stands. This is like the settlement of disbursing the assets and liabilities of a scheme of fraud.
The other precedent I’ve seen mentioned here is one I do not like at all, in general or in this specific case — the laws stand under a principle of de facto authority, invoked so as to reduce disruption.
In any case Obama is as much a calamity as a coup would be. Since he holds office illegitimately it is a coup d’etat.
American jurisprudence has a mechanism, more commonly known as a doctrine or a legal principle, that specifically deals with the circumstances and effects of someone "illegally" holding an office, and the legality of the actions he takes while illegally holding that the office. It's call the "de facto officer doctrine".
It's a well-tested principle that has been cited as recently as 1996, in a Rehnquist decision. If you google Ryder v. US, you'll find the case most enlightening. Essentially, whatever laws Obama signs, whatever appointments he makes, whatever military or executive orders or even pardons he issues all will continue to have the full force of law, until such a time that they are either reversed by additional legislation, or new orders.
As far as I'm concerned the entire Democratic party are communists and welcome the overthrow of the capitalists system and the destruction of rule by the Constitution.
“VALID holder of the office” ....... By my reading of the 20th Amendment, probably Biden.
Not for impeachment, only if he is found to be ineligible.
Never heard of “de facto officer doctrine”. Will do some research. Thanx for the info.
Upon doing a little research (didn’t take much), it seems you are correct about “de facto officer doctrine”. I learned something I didn’t know before. Guess you can teach an old dog.(Recently turned 60). Thanks.
Everything he’s done is already null and void - damn constitution...
This is probably a dumb question to ask, but I still wanted to ask it anyways. Also, could the present SCOTUS eventually overturn many of what, both, Obama and the leftist Congress make into law, due to much of what they pass being unconstitutional?
***
That is a tricky situation - and SCOTUS would have to weigh in on this, even in an advisory opinion (which it doesn’t normally do). It is not in the Constitution - but this situation was never contemplated by the Founding Fathers.
Let me try to put this simply - the questions I pose would be for SCOTUS to decide ...
1. Many states, such as NJ have laws that state if a person is found to be ineligible - then his election is null and void, even after assuming office.
Does this mean that he never held the office? If so, are all acts committed while he was in office valid?
2. In the case of POTUS - does the VP assume the presidency (assuming he is eligible) under the 25th Amendment?
The reason I ask is that the same electors whose votes in the Electoral College are invalidated for Obama are the same electors who elected Biden VP. The 12th Amendment erased the electoral voting problem in Article II, Section I by separating the vote for POTUS and VP in the Electoral College.
But, it did not erase the problem in the General Election.
In the General Election, the public voted for one slate of electors to vote for both POTUS and VP in the Electoral College. McCain/Palin had 538 separate indiividual electors and Obama/Biden had 538 different electors. The Electoral College was constituted of 365 Obama/Biden electors and McCain/Palin had 173.
If those Obama/Palin electors have their votes for Obama tossed, do they also get tossed for Biden?
Or does SCOTUS rule that the implicit intent of an individual voter for Obama/Biden is that if Obama is ineligible, then they want Biden at the top?
Since most voters only vote the top of the ticket - who is to say that they would have voted Democratic if say, it had been Clinton/Biden?
Useful for diversion while awaiting Judge Carter. I wonder if he was getting ready to dismiss the case on Friday then decided to hold it for Monday so as not to appear ridiculous in the midst of all the Nobel adulation, like the guy tearing up the arrest warrant in the last scene of It’s a Wonderful Life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.