If he proves to be not qualified to run, what impact does that have on legislation he signed while in office?
If he doesn’t provide proof of eligibility in Arizona or any other state that enacts such eligibility legistaion, and he doesn’t run because of it, that would lead to real suspicion that THE 1 wan’t qualified to run and hold the office of POTUS in the first place. That woulde then open a can of worms that would, we pray, lead to not only his but Pelosi’s, Reids’s, and others trials and convictions for the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in this country’s history. Everything he did while in office illegaly would then be open for review and or total reversal. That includes his appointments to the US Supreme Court. Sotomeyer and Kagan would be sitting on the Court under fraudulant terms. All of this would be unchartered territory. It would be interesting to see if it ever plays out.
Actually, little or no effect. From the very start it was crystal clear in the government that once the electoral college had its say, that was it, even if they voted a dog to be president.
Though they are, by tradition, supposed to vote their first ballot for the candidate they represent, they are not obligated to (which could be reasonable, if say, a candidate died). But if a president is not selected in a first ballot, all electors become free agents, and can vote for anyone they want.
The solidity of the presidency was further affirmed in 1810 in the Marbury v. Madison decision, in which the president was ordered to act by the SCOTUS, and refused to do so, saying as a co-equal branch they could not force him to act.
This means that once in office, impeachment and conviction are the only way to remove a president. Importantly, while presidents have been impeached twice, only once has a member of the presidents’ cabinet been impeached.
This situation becomes dangerous with a recent presidential innovation: the presidential signing statement. Clearly unconstitutional, when congress passes a bill and sends it to the president to sign, he adds a statement that says how he *interprets* the bill, and what parts he will *enforce* and what parts he will *neglect*. This almost negates the need for a congress at all.
Finally, every president since Truman has created and recreated a litany of emergency decrees in which he could assume dictatorial emergency powers. Presidents of both parties have engaged in this corruption, which paints a bizarre portrait of the presidency.
In any event, the SCOTUS has quietly made it clear that they think Obama is illegitimate, but that he will remain in office for one term, and not run for reelection. Their rationale is that while the birth requirement exists in the constitution, it has never been fleshed out with enabling laws, nor is there anyone responsible for its enforcement.
While this is indeed a travesty, they cannot remove him from office, but they can prevent him from running for reelection, which is the extent of their powers. And, as long as he remains in office, what he does will be accepted as legitimate, unless he is impeached and removed by congress.