You say "stick with him" as if he were asking to head the ticket in an election. You're treating this as a purely political situation, dismissing the Constitution as a technicality. Biden is the VP; that he wouldn't have gotten there but for the hypothetical crimes of Obama is irrelevant. When Nixon stepped down, Ford wouldn't have been next in line but for the crimes of Spiro Agnew.
I have no idea how it might all play out. There is no direct precedent for it in American political history.
No court is going to set that precedent. I'll tell you how it will play out: Barring a natural or artificial death, Barack Obama will stand for re-election on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2012.
I think theoretically, if Obama were proven to have been Constitutionally ineligible to run in the first place, he could easily be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, but if the proof were sufficient even without a series of impeachment hearings, the Attorney General would be charged with arresting him.
If the Attorney General ordered the president's arrest, the president would simply fire the AG. Arrested or not, in custody or not, the AG doesn't have the constitutional authority to remove the president from office. An attempt to do so would be nothing more or less than a coup d'etat.
If the proof were sufficient without a series of impeachment hearings, the House could simply vote articles of impeachment, and the Senate could hold a quick trial and convict. It could be done in a day, unless John Roberts is out of town.
Or a majority of the Cabinet can transmit to the speaker of the House and the president pro tem of the Senate their declaration that the president is unable to discharge the duties of his office. That would take him out of the Oval Office while an impeachment trial could be arranged.
I think even the lawyers among us are speculating about what the laws say, what the realities are, and how the two would ultimately be reconciled. Something like this is so truly unprecedented that we truly would not know until we arrived there...
This whole scenario is predicated on someone claiming and exercising the authority to undo an election, brushing the Constitution aside as a technicality. Once that Rubicon is crossed, throw all the law degrees out the window, because that someone (or someones) is effectively ruling by fiat.
I wonder what happened with the congressman who proposed a law that all future presidential candidates must present more convincing proof of being a natural-born citizen. I don't recall if he was proposing a certifying body and obviously there are some kinks to work out such as an exact definition of "natural born". But I think this guy was on the right track.
“You say “stick with him” as if he were asking to head the ticket in an election. You’re treating this as a purely political situation, dismissing the Constitution as a technicality. Biden is the VP; that he wouldn’t have gotten there but for the hypothetical crimes of Obama is irrelevant.”
___________________________________________________________
No, I say “stick with him” as if he were a tainted choice made by Obama, and assented to by the delegates...and I deliberately leave as an open question whether they would continue to support him, and rest the imprimatur of their approval upon him in the event of Obama’s legal “viability” being properly and successfully challenged.
As concerns the US Constitution, it is certainly NOT a technicality, but rather the basis for all these objections and challenges. Our precious Constitution should be considered immutable, and applied fully.
Biden’s stature as V.P. rests too strongly upon his place on the ticket with Obama, as Obama’s choice (”ratified” by the delegates for the party and for Obama.) That he wouldn’t have gotten there but for Obama IS (IMHO) absolutely relevant.
Arguing otherwise opens the door to allowing any/all of his Cabinet Secretaries, the Attorney General, press secretary, or various White House Staff to retain their positions.
He chose Biden after a winning a series of primary elections he should have been legally ineligible to stand for, and the convention delegates voted their agreement.
He has chosen the various Cabinet members, etc...after winning a general election and being approved by the electoral college - that he should have been legally ineligible to stand for; the Senators voted to confirm his proposed CabSec candidates as a continuation of his deception.
If I may use an analogy, it is like a citizen being arrested, indicted and accused of a felony crime, being defended (unknowingly) by a public defender who was not a legally recognized attorney at law. Even if the citizen is found guilty convicted and sentenced, the subsequent discovery of the ineligibility of his “attorney” will invalidate the entire process.
The indictment, the pretrial arraignments and hearings, the trial itself, the sentencing phase...
Even if the fraud looked good while “practicing”, offered passionate and pointed arguments, and authored several insightful motions and demurs - the conviction must be overturned, because it must be considered that the citizen did not receive adequate, qualified, or competent legal representation.
____________________________________________________________
“If the Attorney General ordered the president’s arrest, the president would simply fire the AG. Arrested or not, in custody or not, the AG doesn’t have the constitutional authority to remove the president from office. An attempt to do so would be nothing more or less than a coup d’etat.”
____________________________________________________________
There is still a problem of precedent to be dealt with here. The shape of that problem is this: Ordinarily, impeachment is reserved for pursuit/prosecution of a sitting President who has been legitimately seated.
In this hypothetical situation, Obama has violated the proscription of lawful eligibility in the first place, by being an illegitimate candidate through the Democrat primaries.
He has continued the deception through the process of having his primary victories ratified through commitment of the delegates/democrat party electors, and carried that right through the general election.
Because of his legal ineligibility to stand for any of these elections, to ascend to, and to occupy the office of US President, he has violated the Constitution and committed crimes against the peace and safety of the citizens of the United States of America in attaining that office.
The Attorney General is considered the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the USA, right?
He is, therefore, an officer of the court charged with upholding the law - and the Const., so what would his responsibilities be in that scenario?
Once he was made aware of the laws (possibly) violated by Obama, what would his job obligations direct him to do in behalf of the American people?
We have a three branch system of checks and balances, therefore how could rightfully subjecting Obama to the law be considered a coup d’etat?
After all, either he is above the law, or he is not.
Somebody would have to present the evidence to a judge with proper jurisdiction to hear it and issue an indictment, or convene a Grand Jury. Charges in a case like this may necessitate a secret Grand Jury to investigate and hear them, and a sealed indictment to be presented.
Who has the authority to present and exercise instruments of the law in behalf of the American people?
If he is an imposter, a fraud, a poseur - then it surely cannot only fall to Congress and the political process of impeachment (could we safely assume that a Democrat majority in control would NOT act against him, any more than they did against Sen. Barney Frank?) to hold him to account, could it?
If so, then “We, the People...” are rather ill-protected.
Understand, I am no lawyer; I have somewhat better than a layman’s understanding of these ins and outs, but there may well be fine points of law,or procedure which escape me.
I am examining issues and asking “what if”, “how”, and “why”.
A.A.C.