I said Congress would impeach Obama AFTER the Supreme Court found Obama NOT Constitutionally qualified to be President.
And If Congress refused to impeach the Usurper, they would get destroyed on election day. The "solid evidence" would be SCOTUS finding Obama not qualified. This issue is gravely more serious than the Clinton impeachment, no comparison. You would have a "President" occupying the White House without the power to execute his office. The Executive Branch would be in disarray. The US government frozen. Congress would have no choice but to remove him from office.
The military would not have to listen to his orders — *once* a conviction is obtained from the Senate, in a Trial, which would have been given to them by the House, having Impeached him.
But, prior to a conviction — Obama is not guilty — namely, he has to be *convicted* first, by the Senate, before he is removed from office. It’s just like Clinton — he still remained *President* with no lessening of his powers — even while they were *counting* the votes for conviction (or “failing to convict”).
No, Obama military orders would be in jeopardy if SCOTUS found him not Constitutionally qualified. Have you read the military oath of service? Read the very first line. You'll find the answer there.
Clinton never stopped being President — even though, theoretically — he might have been removed from office at a particular time.
Clinton was never convicted by the Senate but was impeached by the House. Of course Clinton never stopped being president. The Clinton issue was not about being an Unconstitutional President. Your point is a non sequitur and moot.
You said — “I said Congress would impeach Obama AFTER the Supreme Court found Obama NOT Constitutionally qualified to be President.”
Well, that’s an interesting prediction, considering “who” are the people who are in Congress now... i.e., Democrats for a very large majority. You’ve got more faith in Democrats than I do... I’m glad you do. I simply say it’s *not a given* that they will do such a thing. You seem to have great faith in Democrats, at least more “faith” than I have in Democrats...
—
You said — “And If Congress refused to impeach the Usurper, they would get destroyed on election day. The “solid evidence” would be SCOTUS finding Obama not qualified. This issue is gravely more serious than the Clinton impeachment, no comparison. You would have a “President” occupying the White House without the power to execute his office. The Executive Branch would be in disarray. The US government frozen. Congress would have no choice but to remove him from office.”
I think that if this developed, the simple answer is that he would lose at an election. You have more faith in the Democrats than I do. I think the voting public would turn him out of office, with solid evidence to that effect.
Of course, *that* has been the problem all along — in that there has been *absolutely no evidence* that any court has affirmed and/or adjudicated that this is the case.
If this *ever* happens (that a court does adjudicate such a thing, i.e., “evidence”) — then — this issue will get some traction. In the meantime — it’s been going nowhere and will continue to go nowhere.
Talking about all the “what-ifs” of what Congress will do and what the Supreme Court will do — is fun to talk about — but *it’s not the reality* of what is happening today. It’s all “theoretical talk” at this point in time. It has been all “theoretical talk” from the time before the election to right up to the inauguration and now all the way into the Presidency of Obama...
—
You said — “No, Obama military orders would be in jeopardy if SCOTUS found him not Constitutionally qualified. Have you read the military oath of service? Read the very first line. You’ll find the answer there.”
Well, the phrase “be in jeopardy” is a weasel phrase anyway. That’s like saying that a Senator’s position “is in jeopardy” if he is convicted of a crime that makes him ineligible for office. Of course, “it’s in jeopardy” — which is a different matter than “not being Senator”.
Likewise with a President, like Clinton, his position as President *was in jeopardy* during the Impeachment and Trial (concerning his crimes that he was accused of). And even though his position was “in jeopardy” — he was still President (and his position was “still in jeopardy” all the while...LOL...).
So, Obama’s position in office may be “in jeopardy” but it’s only an “accomplished fact” *if* he is removed — until then, it’s simply “in jeopardy” and he’s still President...
—
You said — “Clinton was never convicted by the Senate but was impeached by the House. Of course Clinton never stopped being president. The Clinton issue was not about being an Unconstitutional President. Your point is a non sequitur and moot.”
The problem is — the crimes that Clinton is said to have committed would make him “unfit” to be President, and thus require his removal.
Likewise, Obama is being accused of a crime too, just like Clinton was accused of a crime. Obama’s accusation of a crime is that he’s not Constitutionally qualified. A crime is still a crime, no matter if one President has one kind of a crime and another President has another kind of crime. They all require conviction and removal from office.
So, Obama would have to be convicted of such a crime and then removed. Short of that, no amount of accusations is going to change his present position as President of the United States.
The next election might change it, when these bills in Arizona and Oklahoma get through the legislatures and get passed into laws — which requires candidates to show specific documentation or else they cannot be on the ballot....