Constitutionally there was nothing unfair about it, and if Obama is found to be ineligible then that doesn't change it. If he died there wouldn't be a repeat election. The election was held, the Constitution lays out the means to replace Obama if he is found to be ineligible, there will be no new election.
Thanks for the reply. In one sense, I was speaking more of in a sense of justice than constitutionally. I'm not a constitutional scholar. If one candidate got on the ballot by intentional fraud and won, he should not have been on the ballot in the first place. His slate of electors would have been chosen by people based on a lie and his party would benefit by this intentional fraud.
In my mind, letting the election stand and letting his electors choose another of their choice could set a dangerous precedent making it beneficial to commit such fraud. For instance, just push forward and vouch for a candidate that can win the general election by saying whatever is required. Then, before the electoral college meets, release information "that was found" disqualifying them and replace them with the real choice of the party through its' electors.
So I was not speaking constitutionally but more just exploring potential issues in my mind. On the constitutional issue, I did read what Billybob wrote about the Greeley case and understand that, but that case did not involve intentional fraud, which this case possibly could. That aspect I felt may possibly be the unexplored waters I mentioned.
You have been just about the only voice of reason in this entire thread. Thank you. It’s good to have one person who understands law and logic around here.