Obama was born in a hospital located in modern day Kenya. Whatever other arguments might be made, he did not become a citizen by right of birth. So it isn't possible for him to be eligible to hold the office of President.
The office is thus vacant at this time. The eligible person who got the most votes as Vice Present is the acting president until an eligible person is declared elected by Congress.
Point is, you can't impeach Obama because he doesn't hold the office.
Procedurally, probably the most effective way to attack the situation is by making a collateral attack on some action he takes purporting to act as President. For example, a Quo Warranto action might be commenced against Sonya Sotomayor, seeking to eject her from the Supreme Court on the grounds that to be lawfully appointed to the Court, a person must be appointed by the President.
You should be able to get that case to trial without having to contend with standing issues to sue the President or other procedural limitations on your ability to get a lawsuit at issue against the person who occupies the White House.
You would still need to have standing to raise the issue as to Sonya but it would seem that a litigant before the Court would be qualified. There is lots of law on cases where a litigant has standing to successfully attack the capacity of the Judge.
I suspect that any of these states suing to overturn the Health Care Act might well have original jurisdiction rights to initiate such a challenge before the Supreme Court--if not, at least in the District Court in DC.
You get a hearing on the merits of your claim; prove he was born in Kenya; and get an order kicking Sonya out with findings supporting the order.
You then take that order and start off attacking other action he may have taken--signing the Health Care Bill; issuing military orders; etc.
The moving trucks are not far behind.
The office is thus vacant at this time.
Point is, you can't impeach Obama because he doesn't hold the office.
Ummmm..., told you this one was coming from some of the "Obama Derangement Syndrome" crowd... LOL ...
See my Post #38 ... :-)
Which means health care wouldn’t be a valid law?
David, thanks for your, as usual, interesting perspective. So does this mean that you think exposure and removal from office is now a reasonable possibility? Or merely a subject for continued speculation?
Seems that this should happen before more harm is done.
Until lately, I’ve felt that flipping Congress in November would be enough to tie the President’s hands and stop his appalling agenda. I don’t want violence, upheaval, a nation distracted from very real international security concerns.
But the damage now being done is just too much to ignore. Something must be done to stop it.
Would these suits filed by the states’ attorneys general be an avenue into the scenario you suggest?
ping...
Obama was born in a hospital located in modern day Kenya. Whatever other arguments might be made, he did not become a citizen by right of birth.
So it isn't possible for him to be eligible to hold the office of President.
The office is thus vacant at this time.
The office is thus vacant at this time.
Check out #59.
[Thanks, Seizethecarp.]
BTTT
We had a discussion with some of the usual suspects this morning about their lack of undertanding of the de-facto officer doctrine...which I posted a link to a case concerning a judge and how he was not a defacto officer due to the error not being procedural but jurisdictional and constitutional (as it would be with Obie) It would be great if the first case to his the Supremes over health care challenged Sotomeyer’s appointment..two birds with one stone.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=2000app%5Cct112415&invol=1
We conclude that the issue presented here, as in Glidden v. Zdanok, supra, concerns both a nonfrivolous constitutional question and a strong policy regarding the proper administration of judicial business. Although the appointment of the county court judge here, not in accordance with statutory, constitutional, or chief justice directive provisions, may be regarded by some as a technical defect, at bottom, it concerns the fundamental interest of litigants in ensuring that “qualified county court judges” will be called upon to serve as acting district court judges “when necessary and when funds are available.” See Chief Justice Directive 95-01. This consideration leads us to adhere to our prior decision and conclude that the proper appointment of a county court judge to act as a district court judge presents a jurisdictional question. Therefore, the de facto judge doctrine does not apply, and the judgment cannot stand.