It seems to me that there is in fact a time limit. I believe that the phrase "shall have failed to qualify" is a reference to the joint session of congress where objections are heard in the confirming of the electoral ballots. There is no other opportunity to verify "qualifications" of a "President elect" in the process. And james, I see no reason for Congress to invoke the 20th amendment at this point because it would be an admission that they failed in their duties on the 8th of January. I do not know how we get Congress to act against itself.
The question is at present, is he the President,(I think he is) and how could he be removed?(Impeachment in January of 2011)
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
It seems to me that there is in fact a time limit. I believe that the phrase “shall have failed to qualify” is a reference to the joint session of congress where objections are heard in the confirming of the electoral ballots. There is no other opportunity to verify “qualifications” of a “President elect” in the process. And james, I see no reason for Congress to invoke the 20th amendment at this point because it would be an admission that they failed in their duties on the 8th of January. I do not know how we get Congress to act against itself.
The question is at present, is he the President,(I think he is) and how could he be removed?(Impeachment in January of 2011)
Even in January, 2011 there wouldn’t have been enough Democrats up for reelection in the Senate to result in a 2/3rds Republican majority needed to remove Obama via impeachment. There is no way for the Republicans to go from their current 40 votes to the 67 needed for conviction.
Remember that every Senate Democrat and ten (or 5 on one article) Republicans voted William Jefferson Clinton to be found not guilty.
I'll take same tack that After-Birthers use, what is a natural born citizen? Define "beginning of his term". Has that Constitutional clause ever been defined by the courts? Is it defined in the US Constitution? Where is it defined? What is the beginning of term? It could be as far out as 2 maybe 3 years. Congress could use a liberal view on what it means.
Yes, Congress in all likelihood would not admit that they failed in their duties and would have to be compelled by the courts to remove an usurper after he was found to be illegitimate and made impotent. The courts could stop short in the actual removal by leaving that task for Congress. It's an untenable situation. Congress would be left with no choice but to remove Obama. The courts could leave Congress a thinly face saving act with impeachment and trial.