Getting certified as President by Vice President Cheney and the joint session of Congress, and being sworn in by the Chief Justice.
But the point of this case is that Vice President Cheney and the joint session of Congress did NOT lawfully certify Obama as the winner of the electoral vote.
And they clearly didn’t. The requirement of the law is clear and it didn’t happen. It is required that they ask for any objections, and they didn’t.
We’re talking about a country which lets obviously guilty people go free if the police fail to follow to the letter the exact procedure of reading the exact words of a Miranda warning.
Use that standard.
Obama has never been LAWFULLY declared the winner of the electoral vote.
When you realize that, you see that it may be Chief Justice Roberts who has to recuse himself as well, because the entire superficial “legitimacy” of Obama stands on the image of Roberts - without LEGAL reason to do so - swearing in Obama. What Roberts did was unlawful. He can’t just swear in somebody who has never been lawfully declared to be the electoral winner.
If Roberts swore me in would I then be the POTUS? I’ve never been lawfully declared the electoral winner or qualified, but then neither has Obama so what’s the difference? Why would it be considered a coup if he swore me in but considered a “de facto officer” if he did it to Obama? In a legal sense, what exactly is the difference?
How can Obama be a de facto officer when the step to declare him the electoral winner never fulfilled the legal requirements?
And “duly” certified by Nazi Pelosi!!!