Whether Obama can or cannot “act as President” is the subject of lawsuits that are still pending. We don’t even know if he was ever LAWFULLY declared to be the electoral winner so he could be the President elect, much less fulfill the requirement of qualifying once he was the President elect.
Let me get back to a hypothetical scenario I had brought up before, which I set aside when you and El Sordo went silly on me.
Suppose that Obama says he took the presidential oath of office in his bedroom one day, with one witness who says she tape recorded it. The witness, when asked whether the oath had been lawfully taken, said she can not say. She says she cannot show the video either because Obama says the video makes him look fat.
Would Obama be legally allowed to assume the powers of the presidency based solely on his own statement that he had taken the oath of office correctly, while refusing any independent corroboration of the fact? Why or why not?
It’s a little bit like, “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, would it still make a sound?”
Non-sequitur. The person legally authorized to administer the oath of office is the one who would stipulate that it was properly administered. The witness attests to the fact that the oath was administered not that it was properly administered.
Again, it doesn’t matter whether or not Obama can “act as President.” It doesn’t matter whether or not he was lawfully declared to be the winner of the Presidential election. He has entered upon the office. He is the sitting President until the Judiciary and Congress say otherwise.
You’re bogged down in technicalities and can’t see the forest for the trees.