Replies

You are conveniently ignoring the Constitutional mechanisms for removing a President

No I'm not. The Constitution clearly states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." It says nothing about usurpers.

You are ignoring the requirement that in order to be President, one must be a natural born citizen, over 35 and a resident of the US for 14 years.

Since the courts have been delegated the power to try "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority", it would seem to fall to them to determine if someone meets the requirements, or the meaning of the Natural Born Citizen" term. So far they have declined to do so, despite the many attempts to get them to do their job.

No I’m not. The Constitution clearly states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It says nothing about usurpers.

You are ignoring the requirement that in order to be President, one must be a natural born citizen, over 35 and a resident of the US for 14 years.

Since the courts have been delegated the power to try “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”, it would seem to fall to them to determine if someone meets the requirements, or the meaning of the Natural Born Citizen” term. So far they have declined to do so, despite the many attempts to get them to do their job.

The term “high crimes and misdemeanors” can be interpreted in any way that the House of Representatives so chooses in drawing up articles of impeachment.
“Usurping” the office of President involves election fraud, at the very least. And most likely perjury, forgery and making false statements. Impeachment is a politcal process not a judicial process. The only penalty is removal from office.

As one US District Court Judge said in dismissing an Obama eligibility lawsuit: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accompished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president-removal for any reason-is within the province of Congress not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing Barnett, et. al v Barack H. Obama, et. al. October 29, 2009
About 20 different Obama eligibility lawsuits were dismissed for “failure to state a claim” (upon which relief can be granted). That’s legalese for, there is nothing that the judiciary can do.