Replies

The de facto officer doctrine exists for the orderly functioning of government, not for the benefit of the person who is found to be ineligible for elected or appointed governmental position.

It exists to prevent unjust harm to those who act on a reasonable belief that the officer was acting legitimately. For example, if the government secures a contract to buy 50,000 widgets for a program which is subsequently found to be unconstitutional, the company that was contracted to produce the widgets isn't supposed to be left high and dry. On the other hand, if the owners of a company were to conspire with a corrupt official to secure a contract they knew to be illegitimate, such a contract would likely be voided.

If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, actions contrary to it by definition cannot be legitimate. While it may not be possible to roll back all illegitimate actions, the difficulty of rolling back an action does not make it legitimate. The government may be bound to pay out an illegitimately-obtained contract which the other party negotiated in good faith, but that doesn't mean the government wouldn't then be obligated to protect the fiduciary interests of taxpayers by seeking redress from anyone who worked on the contract knowing it was illegitimate.

There are no titles of nobility allowed under the Constitution. Immunities which would apply to government personnel who undertake their legitimate duties cannot be legitimately applied to actions those personnel cannot reasonably believe to be legitimate.

It exists to prevent unjust harm to those who act on a reasonable belief that the officer was acting legitimately. For example, if the government secures a contract to buy 50,000 widgets for a program which is subsequently found to be unconstitutional, the company that was contracted to produce the widgets isn’t supposed to be left high and dry. On the other hand, if the owners of a company were to conspire with a corrupt official to secure a contract they knew to be illegitimate, such a contract would likely be voided.

If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, actions contrary to it by definition cannot be legitimate. While it may not be possible to roll back all illegitimate actions, the difficulty of rolling back an action does not make it legitimate. The government may be bound to pay out an illegitimately-obtained contract which the other party negotiated in good faith, but that doesn’t mean the government wouldn’t then be obligated to protect the fiduciary interests of taxpayers by seeking redress from anyone who worked on the contract knowing it was illegitimate.

It would be interesting to see if any court agrees with your opinion. Thus far there have been 87 ajudications of lawsuits challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility including nine applications and petitions at the Supreme Court of the United States and none of them have found him to be ineligible. The vast majority have been dismissed for lack of standing.
My personal opinion is that the cart can’t be put before the horse: no finding of ineligibility, no test of de facto officer as applied to Obama.
I agree with a US District Court Judge who ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit: “There very well may be a legitimate rule 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 of office and was sworn in, he became the 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 procedures 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.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter, Barnett v Obama, October 29, 2009.

A different federal district court judge ruling on an Obama eligibility lawsuit said the following: “The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling primary campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost his opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidible opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support the contention that the President was not eligible for the office that he sought.
Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not initiated impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad, bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. (See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. 2009).(commemorating by a vote of 378-0, the 50th Anniversary of Hawai’i’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawai’i on August 4, 1961).”

“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—
U.S. District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, Clay R. Land, Rhodes v MacDonald, September 16, 2009.