No, I do not agree.
I agree with the federal courts who ruled on this issue regarding Obama in 2009: “...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 accomplished 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.”—Barnett, Keyes et al. v. Obama, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
Under the doctrine of “de facto officer” whoever occupies an appointed or elected office functions AS IF eligible and their acts in that office are offical until they are removed from office. Impeachment is one option for removing an ineligible office holder whose ineligibility involved committing high crimes and misdemeanors such as forgery and identity theft.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-officer/
Barry Obama jumped through all the constitutional and political hoops that are required to be president. He won enough primaries and caucuses to receive a major party nomination. He qualified for the ballot in 50 states and the District of Columbia, twice. He received over 300 electoral votes, twice. His electoral votes were certified without objection from any member of Congress, twice. He took the Oath of Office, four times. Congress sends him legislation to sign into law. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of many of his policy actions as president. The Senate has confirmed hundreds of his nominees. Just last week the Senate confirmed Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Transportation on a vote of 100-0. He has ordered the U.S. military into harm’s way. He IS the president and he CAN be impeached.
Senate impeachment trials are a political process and a conviction under a Bill of Impeachment is unlikely with 55 Democrats and several RINOs in the Senate between now and January, 2015. Ten Republican Senators voted “not guilty” of perjury in Bubba Clinton’s impeachment trial.
That’s why I favor coalescing all ineligibility efforts around both holding congressional hearings and finding one willing prosecutor anywhere in the United States who is courageous enough to launch a grand jury probe into this issue with the goal being to produce enough evidence of criminal activity to force Obama’s resignation.
So if a 30 year old person is elected and sworn in, a person who is not eligible, and removal can be effected only by impeachment, what then is the purpose of Article II?
The construction you are advancing is absurd and obstructs the purpose of Article II. The Constitution must be construed as a whole and it’s provisions read in a way that is compatible and not contradictory.
The absurdity of your position is abundant: a person who has never been to the United States, who was born 20 years ago in a foreign country to foreign parents but who is popularly elected would magically become eligible by being elected.
The cases you cite are foolish and political. Don’t be blinded by a desired political outcome.
Do you agree that that an ineligible person can not be impeached?