Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SvenMagnussen
John at OCT makes a good point:

I think Gary Kreep’s argument was much stronger than Orly’s. Obama can not be impeached for his ineligibility because being ineligible in not a crime.

Yes, Obama can be impeached on fraud and other crimes based on his eligibility, but he can’t be impeached solely on his ineligibility.

However, Obama can still be removed. Provisions in the Constitution state the POTUS can removed if he dies or resigns. However, when the POTUS dies or resigns, he is not impeached.

Further, the POTUS can be removed if the POTUS has a condition that renders him with the inability to discharge his duties. Being ineligible would fall under this. While the courts can’t remove the POTUS from office, I submit that the courts certainly have the power to determine if Obama is ineligible or not since this ties directly to a consitutional provision.

With a judgement that Obama is ineligible, Congress would compelled to act and they treated Obama as if he had died, resigned, or had a stroke. No impeachment would be necessary and Biden would become the POTUS.

41 posted on 10/20/2009 5:35:46 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (Clever tagline can only be seen on the other internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: SvenMagnussen

Injury in fact to Presidential Candidates running against ineligible candidate(s)

Whatever4 at OCT makes a good point:

Minor parties also can be harmed even if they have no shot at winning. Federal matching funds depend on the results of this election. “Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.)

The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party’s popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote.

The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate’s popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.”

42 posted on 10/20/2009 5:46:06 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (Clever tagline can only be seen on the other internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: SvenMagnussen
Further, the POTUS can be removed if the POTUS has a condition that renders him with the inability to discharge his duties. Being ineligible would fall under this. While the courts can’t remove the POTUS from office, I submit that the courts certainly have the power to determine if Obama is ineligible or not since this ties directly to a consitutional provision.

That argument runs into a couple of legal problems. Federal courts, including SCOTUS, do not have the jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions in the abstract, by giving an "advisory opinion" to Congress. They have the power to decide constitutional questions only if that question comes up in the course of deciding a lawsuit. Because the court has no power to impeach Obama or order him to resign, it cannot give Congress an advisory opinion on Obama's eligibility.

43 posted on 10/20/2009 5:51:19 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson