BTW, if Obama failed to qualify impeachment is not necessary.
The two ways that have been discussed here on Free Republic for Obama to not qualify per the Constitution are (1) not being born in the United States and (2) not being a natural born citizen.
And this has to do with the three mandatory requirements for someone to be President. They must be (1) 35 years old or more, they must be (2) a resident 14 years or more and they must be (3) a natural born citizen.
And those two things discussed here on Free Republic ([1] not born in U.S., [2] not natural born citizen) -- are centered around #3 of the three Constitutional requirements.
Now, of the first of those, in the first paragraph above (#1 - not born in the U.S.) -- that seems to be a settled issue to me, because of the State of Hawaii officially stating that he was born there.
But, even if that is so, I've always said from right after the election that some states should put up a law that requires any candidate to produce their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot in that state. And I think we'll get that one through before the next Presidential election (if Arizona hasn't already done it by now...).
However, the thing with that one issue is that since the State of Hawaii has already stated that Obama was born there in Hawaii and since they are the very state that issues a "certified copy" of the birth certificate (if one is ever required by a court, or an election) -- I don't expect to see that birth certificate to say anything different than that he was born in Hawaii.
So, that leaves the other issue in that first paragraph to center in on. That's #2 (in that first paragraph) of not being a natural born citizen (in regards to his father's citizenship).
Now, from what I've read on various FReeper threads, that issue is disputed among others (besides even disputed here on Free Republic) as to whether the father's citizenship has any bearing on the natural born status of a person.
And I'm not saying that one side is better than the other side in their arguments here -- but what I am saying is that no matter which side thinks that "they are right" -- that alone (just thinking you're right) is not going to solve this issue legally. And it's going to require a specific ruling on this particular situation by the Supreme Court, before it's legally settled as it pertains to Obama.
So, in the end, the only issue that would have any chance of getting anything "settled" with Obama's "qualifications" (from the way I see it) -- is -- the natural born status -- and that ... only by the Supreme Court rendering its judgment on it.
AND ... if I were to guess which would come up first -- (1) a Supreme Court decision (considering that there's not even a case like that right now going to the Supreme Court) -- or -- (2) the next Presidential election -- I would say that the next Presidential election is going to happen first.
Thus, that's why I come down to the point of saying that if one wants to get rid of Obama, then we better make sure he's voted out at the next Presidential election...
If you didn't read the investigative report that I posted links to in #166, it is interesting. The investigator is setting out to review the claims that Obama proved his eligibility. He details all the "evidence" that has been presented, and tries to discern whether this evidence rises to the level of "proof," or whether it was a series of intentional smokescreens, each one being used to support another one, but with no definitive "proof" underlying them all.
One such claim that he reviews is that Hawaii confirmed that Obama was born there. His conclusion is that those who made confirming statements were not in a position of authority sufficient for their statements to be accepted as proof.
-PJ