[nathanbedford]

Not necessarily.

Consider the complications of undoing legislation which has been on the books and executive orders which will have existed for years. We have never convicted a president in impeachment but I do not think that such a conviction would result in the undoing of his actions while in office. The court might find that since he was Procedurally duly elected and sworn in, his actions in office will stand. On the other hand the court could hold as you suggest that his actions are void, ab initio . But this would imply many things besides just the repeal of statutes and executive orders. What about contracts? Do recipients of the medal of freedom have to give them back? What about all the reliance that individuals, governments and businesses have placed on the statutes, executive orders, and executive agreements entered into? A very, very thorny situation.

And one more reason why it is unlikely that the court will simply issue an order ejecting a president.

[alancarp]

"Procedurally duly elected and sworn in,..."

Yes, but only because the Democrat party chose to undertake fraud in nominating BO as their candidate. In effect, the party assumed (or ignored) his eligibility question -- choosing instead to assume that the first black (or at least half black) candidate would win the election, and thus sweep them into power.

My personal frustration is that there is no court will to take the case or procedurally declare any plaintiff to have sufficient standing to bring suit. Surely there is a means to enforce a Constitutional provision. But since we have (a) a willing Congress; (b) a willing media; (c) a complicit court... I frankly wonder if the Constitution has now been rendered meaningless in most regards.

Ladies and gentlemen, the country has been overthrown and it happened right in front of our eyes.

[El Gato]

court might find that since he was Procedurally duly elected and sworn in, his actions in office will stand

You might be right, but I doubt it. Taking the oath of office is a requirement for taking office, but it does not make the person being sworn President. It's just another requirement for becoming President on January 20th, at noon. Just like being eligible and getting a majority of electoral votes. But, given that the requirements are all satisfied, it's the clock going past noon January 20th, that makes one President. Specifically the Constitution says:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

and

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Note that it does not say that the President elect become President upon taking the oath, nor even just when before entering the execution of the office the oath must be taken. (I'll not even get into the oath fiasco. :) ). It's only by tradition that the ceremony includes the oath takings is done on right at noon on the 20th, or in the date in March that the Presidential term began before the XXth amendment changed it to January 20th.