Replies

You were saying ...

In the event Obama is not qualified under the Constitution (bear with me, here), who removes him? He cannot be impeached under those circumstances, because he is not president, all other nonsense nonwithstanding. (Note the conditions applied to the previous sentence and do me the basic courtesy of not wuoting that out of context, please.)

I'm not "quoting it out" -- but what you (and some others) miss here -- is that the "very mechanism" that is used for "determining legally" whether that is true (and for a President) -- is -- the Impeachment process.

The Impeachment process is that mechanism by which one legally determines that a person is not legally qualified. That's what the process is for... you see.

In other words, you cannot "legally predetermine" that a person is not legally qualified to be President, by merely "saying so". You have to have that "legal adjudicaton" of that fact, before it becomes "legally binding"...

To say it another way... let's say that you and two others were standing there and you witnessed a guy shoot a person in cold blood. Now, you "know it" because you saw it. However, that person is not legally determined to have committed the crime -- until a jury of his peers "says so" by the legal due process.

Now, in the meantime, you may say, "I know the guy is guilty, because I stood there and watched him shoot that person in cold blood, along with two others with me who saw the exact same thing!"

And so you did... you saw it and you know it. But, the guy is not considered to have committed the crime and have been determined to be legally responsible for it under our judicial system -- until -- that legal determination is made.

So no matter how much you say he is a criminal -- he's not until the system and a jury of his peers says so.

It's the same thing with Obama, and the Impeachment process.

The Impeachment process is that mechanism by which one legally determines that a person is not legally qualified. That's what the process is for... you see

I do? Point that out here, which is where the Constitution specifies the impeachment power and how it may be used.

Section. 4. 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 how does this allow Congress to remove someone who is not and never was eligible?

Eligibility is specified in Article II section 1, and determing what that, or other part of the Constitution means, is generally considered to be the function of the Courts.

Article III, Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

In that case, the people to go after would be the ones who certified his candidacy, sans documentation. But according to you, in order to see the documents proving (or even disproving) that a crime took place, one would have to obtain a conviction, or at least the documents themselves, which have been conveniently sealed by...Obama.

Convenient? Coincidence? Or cause for concern?

I find it interesting that the media who brazenly made up documents about President Bush's past berate those who call for the release of those which actually document Obama's, but in all fairness, they made up at least one for him, too.