[higgmeister]

Third world, like ignoring the Constitution and swearing in an ineligible usurper just because he’s a nice shade of brown?

Our problem even then was that there was not and still to this moment is not a process to screen for eligibility, nor a process to remove a usurper if elected.

Others said years ago that U.S. Marshals are not going to evict because the Marshals report to the Chief Executive.

As for eligibility, it was all over the news back then, but is a sitting President or Congress going to intervene in a presidential election?

Until a Twenty-eighth Amendment is ratified to screen for eligibility, the only way to correct the situation is impeachment and that is a very sticky wicket. And not worth mentioning.

[Lurkinanloomin]

It is the root of it all.

It is worth mentioning.

[Cheerio]

Until a Twenty-eighth Amendment is ratified to screen for eligibility, the only way to correct the situation is impeachment and that is a very sticky wicket. And not worth mentioning.

Impeachment only works for removal when in office and there is no punishment. THEY MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND PUNISHED OR WE HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL REPULIC OR A RULE OF LAW. Or the best one can admit to is a rule of law that applies to "R" and not to "D"