No, they are carrying out the lawful orders of the person that:
a) the people of the states voted for,
b) the Electors appointed by each State elected by a wide margin,
c) that The Congress certified as the lawfully elected President,
d) who was duly sworn into office at President of the United States at noon on January 20th, 2009.
At this point, unless somebody can come up with positive proof that:
a) Barack Obama was not born an American citizen and that he knowingly hid that fact from the American people,
b) and have the United States House of Representatives, vote to impeach him on the grounds of obtaining the office fraudulently,
c) and have the United States Sente convict him on that charge and remove him from office
Then, Obama is the lawful President until noon on January 20th, 2013.
Was difference does "knowingly" make? He either is or is not natural born. If he's not, he's not President, even if he really did think he was natural born.
Positive Proof is mighty hard to come by when the State where he claims to have been born won't release the information it says it has, and the person in question will not authorize them to do so, as he could if he wished.
As far as the need for an impeachment and removal trial in Senate, those only apply to Presidents. The Constitution says that in order to be eligible to be President, one must meet 3 criteria: (1) Be 35 years old or older. (2)Have resided in the US for 14 or more years and (3) be a natural born citizen.
In order to actually take the office, the person must in addition get a majority of the electoral votes and take the oath of office. If the person satisfies all 5 conditions, they become President at noon on January 20th, in the appropriate year.
Look it up, the Constitution does NOT say that swearing the oath makes one President, the 5 criteria plus the clock/calender, do that. If no one has met all those requirements, that is they have in the words of the Constitution (amendment XX) "failed to qualify", then the Vice President elect becomes president, assuming he/she meets the same criteria, with the exception that the majority of votes were for VP instead of President.
Because the method of filling the office, as well as the date the new office holder takes over have changed since the Consitution was originally written, you need to look at Art. II section 1, Amendment XII and Amendment XX to get the full picture.
Unfortunately the Constitution is silent as to how to proceed should a violation be discovered after the fact. Clearly someone who is not eligible to the Office of President can never have actually held it. Doesn't matter if the person was not natural born, was less than 35 or had not resided in the US for 14 years, or some combination of those, not eligible means just that, they can't hold the office.
The absence of proof is not proof. Until there is proof that the Constitution of the USA was upheld in Obama even being a Constitutionally defined lawful candidate, there is no authority in the USA that can legally establish Obama as President -not even millions of illegal, Acorn bought votes, can make his Presidency legal.
We have had a coup from the Marxist revolutionaries, which coup was years in the making, and now finally accomplished with corroborating leftist operatives in the Government, the Media, and academia.
“Then, Obama is the lawful President until noon on January 20th, 2013.”
I’ve said it before, but once again I will state that an election or even certification by a congress can’t nulify provisions of the Constitution. That would be to allow constitutional ammendment to occur in a manner not constitutional.....the same way some SCOTUS’s have gone way beyone the Constitution in making their decisions.
If President Obama trully cares about this republic, he will publically produce the proof of his “natural born” status. IF it is found that he is NOT “natural born”, then he needs to step down.