I understand what you are saying, but we are in uncharted waters here. I bristle somewhat at your use of the word “crowned,” as it reminds me of those old movies where they must expose the imposter before the crown is set on his head, else all is lost. A transference of practical authority certainly occurs at inauguration, but unlike a monarchy, “We the People” never fully surrender control of the “crown,” neither to any imposter, nor even to the whims of a Congress lacking the political will to do their duty.
Which is why in my original post I posit a practical, political burden, if not necessarily a formal legal burden, remaining on him. Yes, I agree that once he is inaugurated there is no obvious practical mechanism apart from either Congressional action or elections to fix the problem, and the judicial avenue has, through defect, been unable to confer standing to any individual located outside of those two processes. But pragmatically the burden has not left him, because deliberate impostiture, if true, would imply an exigent circumstance of the very kind “we the people” ought to be able to resolve despite failure of all other firewalls.
This is not to discredit your analysis. I have read your earlier posts and find them depressingly well-grounded in fact and law as it is widely practiced and understood. That is not a concession that modern practice is correct, but it does put limits on feasible solutions.
Which is why I remain committed to highlighting the uniqueness of the situation as a way to keep the burden on him despite the failure of the system. The Founders worked within the assumptions of the times in which they lived, and as much as I respect their work, I do not believe they fully accounted for this set of circumstances. I see this as a deliberate hack that is exploiting a weakness in the design. The hackers (plural intended) are a step ahead of us and we have complicated our response by allowing the overgrowth of judicial supremacy to disrupt our ability to bypass a malfunctioning Congress. The doctrine of standing in particular has evolved pathologically, from a guardian against an overly ambitious judiciary to a guardian against a defrauded citizenry.
So now we have a “constitutional virus,” and as anyone who has dealt with viruses knows, the best cure is prevention. That of course is why we have elections. They are the soft reboot that theoretically prevents a disruption of the system from becoming permanent. But well-written viruses are designed to survive reboots by hiding and reinfecting. So sometimes more draconian measures are required.
Short of such measures, the best solution now appears to be a combination of quarantine and future prevention. The prevention of future impostiture can be effected by legislating higher standards for qualifying candidates at the state level. But quarantining the present infection, IMHO, consists mainly in keeping the infection exposed and on the defensive by whatever in or out of the box methods may present themselves, including keeping the public mind focused on that which makes the infection alien and suspect, which must include fanning the flames of doubt concerning eligibility until it becomes natural to see him as under a burden of proof he owes the public, if not the state legislatures, which burden he has not met.
…the best solution now appears to be a combination of quarantine and future prevention.
That is a sound conclusion and unless Obama is impeached, convicted and removed for some aspect of his post-inauguration behavior, it appears to be the only available choice. Further, your emphasis on keeping the burden on Obama regarding eligibility is certainly warranted.
I dwell on the Joint Session only for its lessons learned value as it is at the heart of the issue, and marks precisely when and how things went wrong. The uncharted waters you refer to, which IMO applies only to the two parent citizen requirement, are easily navigated with every day principles of contract interpretation – here with reference to the Constitution and contemporaneous writings – and the limits you raise on feasible solutions are bound only by political expediency or lack of courage.
You had every right to bristle at my use of the word “crown”; it indeed is offensive. It was an attempt to portray an act not contemplated in the Constitutional duty to certify the Electoral College votes. The duty, of course, was either to properly review and reject invalid votes, or to properly review and accept valid votes. The lack of such a review by Congress, in the face of a public record that cast substantial doubt as to Obama’s NBC status, was a significant political failure, if not a legal breach of the statute.
None of us in our individual, family or business lives would be so easily persuaded to overlook or dismiss such a major responsibility. Yet for some unknown reason, the agents we pay to actively defend our Constitution did exactly that.
FRegards.