Replies

My reading of that amendment is that the determination of eligibility is a one shot deal. Once he is determined to be eligible and sworn in as president, he can only be removed by impeachment. Otherwise there would be no need for impeachment and the role of the Senate could simply be cut out by the House of Representatives employing the stratagem of reviewing the matter of eligibility whatever it pleases.

Under this interpretation of the Constitution you would soon have tyranny by the House of Representatives intimidating the president into obedience.the House of Representatives would have the exclusive power of impeachment which is constitutionally only to be shared with the Senate.

I simply do not think that eligibility can be determined more than once by this method. It may be that eligibility can never again be determined by any method. That is, even though someone got to be president by committing fraud, even fraud against the Constitution, he nevertheless committed that fraud before he became president. There is a strong body of constitutional scholarship that says the president can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed while in office. Otherwise you would have the president being impeached for every misstep throughout his life and an opposition majority could tie a president up for his whole term.

I do not accept this argument but I am sure that the Democrats would make that argument and, like the Clinton impeachment, the idea is to kick up enough dust so that the public loses the thrust. I have outlined Bill Clinton's high crimes and misdemeanors in a previous post but the public saw it as merely a sex peccadillo and they did not wish to endanger their retirement accounts, so public opinion called for his acquittal and the Senate dutifully obliged. I agree with you that it is an anomaly to have a man in the oval office and have no constitutional or legal remedy to uphold the Constitution. That is the great principle and, as against this overwhelming truth, the idea that a high crime and misdemeanor must be committed in office as opposed to a means of getting in to office, must give way in any decent society.

One last caveat, I recall reading some very turgid article, perhaps a Law Review article, on the subject and it is not so simplistic as we are treating it.

On the other hand, I think the law is clear that ineligibility to hold the office vitiates the certification of election. So we will see.

Nate, you are a lot smarter than me for sure but it seems like we still need to concern ourselves with WHY we can get rid of Hussein rather than HOW we will get rid of him. Could we be getting a little bit ahead of ourselves?

Verification of the available evidence, and perhaps amassing more evidence, seems to be the stage at which we find ourselves right now. Let’s see what Orly produces on her trip.

Of course, I am of the school of thought which says that Hussein doesn’t qualify simply on the basis of who his parents were, regardless of birthplace. But that theory (D’Onofrio’s) doesn’t seem to get much traction, even among FReepers.

My reading of that amendment is that the determination of eligibility is a one shot deal. Once he is determined to be eligible and sworn in as president, he can only be removed by impeachment. Otherwise there would be no need for impeachment and the role of the Senate could simply be cut out by the House of Representatives employing the stratagem of reviewing the matter of eligibility whatever it pleases.

Yeah, but you're obviously just an O-bot troll..when did Axelrod call to give you your instructions? And, I suppose it's just a COINCIDENCE that Obama came to speak in GERMANY, huh?

We are proceeding cautiously, just brainstorming out loud also, and I don’t see anyone suggesting that, if it is truly the case that he was Constitutionally ineligible to be potus, that ANYONE here is suggesting the remedy could be simple.

Far from it ... and we all know it.