It turns out that that is not true. The Supreme Court in 1886 established something called the "de facto officer doctrine":
"The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient." - link
Of course, as hundreds of thousands of people have been researching the so-called "birther" theory for ten years, and haven't been able to come up with a single solid piece of evidence for it, that would seem to make it likely that it is just wishful thinking.
This is utter BS, the sort I'd expect from a bunch of lawyers.
If I were to go grab a shave and a haircut, pop on an Army uniform, grab a couple of Stars from the PX, and order soldiers to uphold the Constitution's Art. 4 Sec. 4 (guaranteeing protection against invasion) by securing the border, would such orders be legitimate? Note that they are in perfect alignment with the Constitution.
Of course, as hundreds of thousands of people have been researching the so-called "birther" theory for ten years, and haven't been able to come up with a single solid piece of evidence for it, that would seem to make it likely that it is just wishful thinking.
None of the legal challenges got heard; apparently nobody anywhere at anytime has any sort of standing
… because, reasons
.
If someone is patently ineligible and his administration was a fraud perpetrated by conspiracy, yes that would mean lots of bad things.
In fact a preponderance of evidence has surfaced. It’s just that most people don’t know about it.
First, there is an ~10 month period in Stanley Ann’s life—the exact timeframe when she would have been pregnant and given birth—when no one anywhere admits to having seen her. She simply disappeared off the grid—the only time in her life that is wholly unaccounted for.
Second, it’s been established that during this period SA was not living with her parents or with her supposed husband. In fact, she had no HI address for this timeframe, and the address listed on both the fabricated birth certificate and the birth announcements is one where SA and the baby NEVER lived.
The first verified sighting of Stanley Ann and her newborn was 2,683 miles away from Honolulu. I.e.: the first confirmed sighting of Stanley Ann and her baby was in Seattle.
Sally Jacobs, via a FOIA request, obtained a document in which Obama Sr says the baby will likely be put up for adoption at the Salvation Army home for unwed mothers. There is not and has never been such an establishment in HI, but Seattle is only a stone’s throw from the Salvation Army home for unwed mothers in Vancouver.
Given airline restrictions in 1961, it’s a virtual impossibility that SA gave birth in HI and then rushed the newborn onto a flight for Seattle. [Two independent sources place SA in Seattle in the latter part of August.] If she’d given birth in HI, there would have been no reason to pay the exorbitant cost of relocating to Seattle anyway. Her school and family were in HI, and she knew no one in Seattle.
Add to that the FACT that the BC is fabricated. Three separate eyewitnesses say that what was in Obama’s HI records file was “handwritten.” One witness specifically stated that Obama had no BC on file. The handwritten notes tie in with the many anomalies associated with Obama’s HI records. The likeliest source for them is Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. After Stanley Ann ended up either opting to keep the baby or being stuck with him, grandma would have gone into action to obtain US citizenship for him. HI made these kinds of under the table transactions easy; hence the handwritten notes and the newspaper birth announcements.
There is a lot more, but that’s the gist of it. The probability that Obama was born in Canada approaches 100%. Having the actual BC probably wouldn’t increase those odds. It’s a near certainty that SA didn’t register (at the home for unwed mothers) under her real name, or list the baby as Barack Obama II. Personally I don’t see the need for the Canadian BC; the evidence speaks for itself.