Replies

The person whose electoral college votes are certified and who is sworn in is the president and that person can only be removed from the presidency by death, resignation or conviction under a bill of impeachment.

Not what the Constitution says. It says:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So, you must believe that someone who is ineligible to the Office of President, can actually be President, since that doesn't mention "ineligible usurper" as being impeachable and removable under that process.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So, you must believe that someone who is ineligible to the Office of President, can actually be President, since that doesn’t mention “ineligible usurper” as being impeachable and removable under that process.

Since no court of law and no act of Congress has declared a presidential candidate to be ineligible or to be a usurper, your question is moot. Under the US Code, Congress had the opportunity to conduct an investigation into the legality of the electoral votes and the electors from any state or the District of Columbia before certifying the votes of the Electoral College but there were no objections raised to the certification. Any one Senator and any one member of the House could have submitted a written objection. None did.

On the issue of usurpation and removal by a Writ of Quo Warranto: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Court for the District of Columbia in rejecting Orly Taitz’s quo warranto attempt.

We don't have a precedent to establish how a usurper should be removed from office. It wasn't discovered until Leo Donofrio documented it that Chester Arthur was ineligible to be POTUS. Even so, Arthur was the sitting President while in office.

The Constitution says that the President-elect must take the oath of office "before entering upon the Execution of" the office of POTUS. Obama is presently executing the office of POTUS.

I don't think it's a given that Obama can be removed by the courts. They can rule on his eligibility (I don't think they will) but it would probably be up to Congress to actually remove him. And I think they'd have to pass legislation mandating how to remove a sitting POTUS who is found to be ineligible to the office he holds.

Even then Obama is such an arrogant thug, he'd probably challenge any such legislation. He has no honor. So he wouldn't resign voluntarily.

Your thoughts?