Doesn’t work that way. Even if he were to be found ineligible (which a wild goose chase) he was still certified by congress. What would happen is that he would be impeached and removed from office. At that point he most likely face criminal charges for half a dozen forms of fraud, but no, nothing would be automatically reversed. He still will have been the President of the United States of America from January 2009 until removal, fraud or no fraud. That’s what Rush is trying to point out.
Melas, you are correct and realistic. Maybe too much so! We conservatives are frustrated.
(1) A Writ of Quo Warranto is obtained, and discovery proves him ineligible
(2) He would be impeached and removed from office.
Sorry. (1) and (2) are not necessarily connected. Nor are "impeached," and "removed." Congress may remove a sitting President by Impeachment in the House and by Conviction in the Senate. Both require a 2/3 vote. Note the "may."
The evidence presented by an order for the Writ of Quo Warranto ... or indeed any court ... is not a binding order for action by the Congress. They are free to accept or reject the evidence or ruling; to act upon it or not. They "shall" not do anything, they "may" do as they please.
As you and Rush indirectly point out: like it or lump it, the Constitution violated by Obama, ironically enough for any man, is his protection!
However, Rush, who could have been a beacon of factual information throughout all of this, shamefully followed the timid RINOs. He was absent when it counted. Just as he did in the illegal immigration controversy, he came late, and without solid research and the facts.
Unfortunately for America, due to the spinelessness of the Republican Party, these blowhard disc jockeys, with very shaky educations, are accepted as political philosophers. They ain't. They are radio time salesmen.
Being a fraud and being a usurper are not necessarily the same thing.
He could be a fraud for taking the oath of office under a name other than his true legal name. That doesn't necessarily make him Constitutionally ineligible from the start.
If, on the other hand, he's found to be a usurper because he was never Constitutionally eligible...then Congress would have no role. The Constitution doesn't prescribe how a usurper is "removed" from that position. Presumably, it would be a law enforcement issue at that point.
Furthermore, who's to say Congress properly counted the E.C. votes when Cheney violated TITLE 3, CHAPTER 1, § 15 when he didn't call for any objections?
The whole thing's a mess and "We The People" deserve and demand adherence to the rule of law and our Constitution.