Is Obama Eligible to Participate in the Presidential Debates? (Vanity

There has been plenty of discussion of the presidential debates: moderators, topics, format and so on. While I was lurking on one such thread here on FR tonight, it occurred to me to look for information about how they are setting up the upcoming town hall debate on October 16 by going to the website of the Commission on Presidential Debates. While there, I came across a section regarding eligibility to participate in the debates and lo and behold, they require the participants to be Natural Born Citizens and the rest of the constitutional qualifications to run for President. See here:

Now, here's the money question: Is it possible to launch a challenge to Obama's participation in the debates? Would doing so have any better chance of success because of the different forum and procedural circumstances? IOW, this would not be a ballot challenge subject to the same standing issues and statutory roadblocks that differed from state to state? Would it be worthwhile as a means of putting added pressure on 0's debate prep? Does anyone have a suggestion about sending this to one of the organizations or people who have made previous challenges?

You’re still not getting it. The court has the power to resolve controversies that arise under the Constitution. Eligibility certainly falls with the scope of such a controversy. This isn’t the same as impeachment. The stuff about Congress certifying the electoral vote does NOT resolve whether or not Obama meets Article II eligibility. Second, Congress is not given a specified power to be the so-called “arbiters of eligibility.” It would be a conflict of interest because a partisan Congress can simply ignore the issue (which is what has happened anyway). It still does NOT take away the court’s Constitutional power to resolve controversies that arise under the Constitution. A de facto officer can be removed for being ineligible. It’s not an impeachment but more of an annulment.

I get it, you don’t.

This isn’t under the Constitution, this is the Constitution
Article 2 section 4. Besides, there is always that pesky Marbury V. Madison.

The court has no power to remove the President. The court can find anything it wants about the president, whether he’s a serial pediophile or ineligible, but only congress can remove him.

De facto vs De Jure, I told you to look it up.

Yes, politics is partisan and they certainly can and have had problems Yes, the House elected a President twice. Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and in 1825 it elected John Quincy Adams

Conflict of interest because they can ignore the issue? — A laughable assertion since it is Congress’s prerogative to act. This is done via Vote and articles of impeachment.

What are your plans? Sue Congress because they won’t impeach the President? Make the SCOTUS issue a writ of Mandamus to compel Congress to impeach the President? Because that is in a nutshell what your argument is, it’s so preposterous that it’s been laughed out of court, laughed at in public and has aided the opposition in belittling the eligibility argument to the point that NO CREDIBLE action will ever take place.

There are 50 Secretary’s of States that have determined Obama’s eligibility — Who are you to say otherwise.

Read Marbury V. Madison and find out for yourself what the court thinks of your type of arguments.

Marbury v. Madison

Excerpt from the pedia entry

“The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution”

That’s what Marbury v. Madison is about.

That was in response to your assertion that the Constitution gives the SCOTUS this mythical power to remove a President.

And no, you don’t know what de facto and de jure are or your denying them in order to deny that Congress by certifying the election and 50 States Secretary of States allowing Obama on the ballot amounts to a de facto approval of eligibility.

What????? Your Marbury quote simply makes a distinction that the power of "judicial review" is not specified under the Constitution. We're not talking about the concept of judicial review. I'm talking about a specified power DIRECTLY under the Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to 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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

"Judicial review" is about deciding the Constitutionality of laws. We're not talking about the Constitutionality of a law. And, we're not talking about an impeachment because that would require a "de jure" president, not a "de facto" president. Here are definitions of "de jure" and "de facto" to help you comprehend this issue accurately:

An officer de jure is a person who is legally appointed to exercise the functions of an office. A person will be appointed as an officer de jure if s/he fulfills the required qualifications to hold the office.

Do you see the underlined part about "required qualifications"??? Obama does NOT have those required qualifications because he is not a natural-born citizen.

"an officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised ...

All that "de facto" means is that a person held an office, but was not necessarily qualified to hold that office. His or her acts would be upheld as lawful acts, but that person is not immune from being removed from office nor is that person entitled to be treated as a lawful occupant of that office. Just because the states gave "de facto approval" does NOT make Obama Constitionally eligible for office under Article II of the Constitution. If Obama was a "de jure" president, he would have to be impeached. Because he is only a "de facto" president, his illegitimate occupation of the office could be annulled by a court.

Not only does your argument subordinate the POTUS to the SCOTUS — which the Constitution takes great pains to avoid, it also usurps the power and duty assigned to Congress.

And your a little light on your analysis of Marbury v. Madison. You did original claim that it was “Judicial Review” that gave the power to remove the President.

Why don’t you draw me a road map where SCOTUS removes POTUS without impeachment.

Make it plain and simple, step by step with cites to the Constitution.

You can’t because they all end with Article 2 section 4.

And no, you still don’t get de facto and de jure. Your main impediment is that you keep on confusing law with the Constitution. They are not the same.

And I’m done beating this dead horse with you. Reality is on my side.

There is no ‘grand conspiracy’, there just isn’t a mechanism in place that does what you want to believe is doable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.