If Obama were somehow removed from office, all of the laws, acts, orders, etc signed by him would remain as law under the de facto officer doctrine.”
I think that would be heavily argued.
NObama was not eligible in the first place & HE knew it. I think that Howard Dean & others also knew it, but covered it up.
That makes NObama nothing more than a forger & fraud.
If someone improperly signs checks in my business, they are not legal & I can recover against those actions.
I think that since he was NEVER eligible in the first place, that each & every law,bill, treaty & Executive Order & appointment would be null & void. He had no legal authority to sign anything from the first minuts.
If Obama were somehow removed from office, all of the laws, acts, orders, etc signed by him would remain as law under the de facto officer doctrine.”
I think that would be heavily argued.
NObama was not eligible in the first place & HE knew it. I think that Howard Dean & others also knew it, but covered it up.
That makes NObama nothing more than a forger & fraud.
If someone improperly signs checks in my business, they are not legal & I can recover against those actions.
I think that since he was NEVER eligible in the first place, that each & every law,bill, treaty & Executive Order & appointment would be null & void. He had no legal authority to sign anything from the first minuts.
No, the defacto officer doctrine would prevail and it was instituted exactly for these kinds of circumstances. Do you really think that Mitch McConnell, Republican Senator Minority Leader would have been standing next to Obama at the Tax Cut Bill signing ceremony on Friday if Obama’s signature on laws were to be invalidated?
Here’s the exact wording of the US Supreme Court’s precedent setting ruling on de facto officer: “The de facto officer doctrine confers VALIDITY upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title EVEN THOUGH IT IS LATER DISCOVERED THAT THE LEGALITY OF THAT PERSON’S APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION TO OFFICE IS DEFICIENT. (Norton v Shelby County, 1886). The de facto officer doctrine springs from the fear of chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official WHOSE CLAIM TO OFFICE COULD BE OPEN TO QUESTION, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government DESPITE TECHNICAL DEFECTS IN TITLE TO OFFICE.”
Since Obama’s Electoral College votes were certified by Vice President Cheney at the joint session of Congress without objection from any of the 535 members of Congress and since Obama was administered the Oath of Office by Chief Justice John Roberts, he IS the 44th President of the United States.
He can be removed from the presidency by resignation, by impeachment and conviction or by defeat at the polls in November, 2012.
Here’s what one federal judge said in ruling on an Obama eligibility lawsuit; “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedure in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president-removal for any reason-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”
U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, Barnett, et. al v Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009