LJ, we have had this discussion before and some of the lawyers chimed in too.
Basically, the Supreme Court would step in and say that Obama was the de facto President. That doesn’t make him legal; but, it would have the effect of making all his actions legal. I think the general theory is that people relied in good faith (right, I know this sounds like BS) on the legality of his Presidency.
In any event, it would be up to Congress and POTUS to change things -— exactly as it is already.
Maybe the politics would be affected, but somehow I doubt it would change anyone’s opinions very much. (We, for example, already know he was illigitimate and a disaster. RATS don’t care about the Constitution anyway.)
I’m still holding to calling BS to that, unless the whole Supreme Court is rotted to core. A fundamental tenet of law is fraud vitiating all contracts and actions. At what point would or would not a fraudulent or unlawful leaders actions trigger this apparent “no do-overs” action?
A ruling allowing this at the government level nullifies the entire concept of the people of the Republic being the sovereigns at the base of the state.
If the actual facts of 0b0la’s fraud were exposed to the public, then we can talk about what may happen.
The fraud was so deep, complete and with a cast of many conspirators with multiple crimes committed, that no one, including lawyers, can ascertain what the outcome will be; legally, politically or otherwise.
To say what SCOTUS would do, when the facts are not even public, and most do not know them, is arguing from the future, without a complete understanding of the exact nature and depth of the fraud.