Posted on 09/10/2009 4:54:47 AM PDT by kellynla
There's no "ticket" as far as the Electoral College is concerned. So, this would not affect Biden, unless some effort incriminates him before the fact.
There has been no such effort, that I'm aware. And, there can't be, unless Obama has been proved ineligible.
So, it goes back to Constitutional disability under Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, with succession issues further clarified by the 25th Amendment, as I replied originally.
But Obama is not the president-elect, he's the president. Anything subsequent to January 20th doesn't change that. So it isn't the 20th Amendment but the 25th Amendment that applies, specifically the first clause: In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
If Obama is found to be ineligible then he will be removed or impeached, in any event forced from office. But the actions of the Electoral College are not nullified or the inauguration voided.
I think they would do the right thing. Surround the Whitehouse and incinerate it.
Would removal of Obama then be a 25th amendment removal of a president that would preserve prior acts, or would removal be removal of a person who was never actually president or even president-elect?
I suspect that only SCOTUS could ultimately answer that question and would be forced to as thousands of plaintiffs would come forward to challenge anything Obama signed while he was presumed eligible and acting as president. The precedent quo warranto cases involving senators seem to indicate that Obama would not have ever actually been president.
“A hypothetical... If a president is impeached for being an unqualified fraud, and then during the trial he orders US military to arrest a few Congressmen who voted for it and to surround the capital building, do you think the military would either stand down or take him out?”
In that case the military would stand down because the order would be unlawful. Also, except under “martial law”, the U.S. military cannot act in that capacity. This “hypothetical” situation would (the arrests) more than likely be carried out by U.S. Marshalls, not the military. I don’t know what they would do.
As far as I can see, it can't. I was just responding to a side-issue to El Gato.
I think you mean "previous" to January 20th. And as for whether he's the president, well, that's the rub, isn't it? On the one hand, "the president" is created by a qualified individual being sworn in on January 20th. On the other hand, if an UNqualified individual is sworn in on January 20th, that can't make him president, because then fraud would be acceptable as long as a person could get sworn it.
So, if an unqualified individual was sowrn in, he's not the president. And if he knew he was unqualified and practiced deceit to GET sworn in, then he defrauded the very qualification process itself - which means it never legally took place (because it was defrauded). So, legally, it never happened, thus I believe the 20th would apply.
Fraud, as a legal subject, has that particular quirk - not just for presidents. If you are defrauded by a contract (and you can prove it), there literally is no contract, no agreement, no signing - nothing. It's not only gone - legally it never existed in the first place.
I don't see the connection between Biden being untouched and the invocation of Article II & the 25th. The point is whether Obama qualified, because the 20th states explicit instructions for if he - as president elect - "failed" to qualify. So, since they instruct for this precise situation, it seems to me they would be the proper application over any other possibilities.
Contempt of court?
Can you be president while doing time in jail?
No, I did mean "subsequent". Prior to January 20th he was the president-elect. Afterwards he was not.
So, if an unqualified individual was sowrn in, he's not the president. And if he knew he was unqualified and practiced deceit to GET sworn in, then he defrauded the very qualification process itself - which means it never legally took place (because it was defrauded). So, legally, it never happened, thus I believe the 20th would apply.
But it did happen. On January 20th a president and vice-president were sworn in. Now if subsequent to that it is determined that Obama is not qualified then I agree that he should be removed. But that doesn't revert him back to 'president-elect' status. It means he is removed from office; same as if he died or resigned or was impeached. At that point the provisions of the 25th Amendment apply and the vice-president becomes president.
Fraud, as a legal subject, has that particular quirk - not just for presidents. If you are defrauded by a contract (and you can prove it), there literally is no contract, no agreement, no signing - nothing. It's not only gone - legally it never existed in the first place.
Except we're not talking about a contract but an election. If Obama committed fraud in order to get elected then yes, it's a crime. But the inauguration happened, and we can't change his status back to president elect. If we follow your arguement he shouldn't even qualify as that, and the election should go to the Congress as per the 12th Amendment. But at the end of the day I think it's the 25th that applies.
The President Elect did qualify. Information coming to light after the fact does not change the fact of his having been qualified; it creates a Constitutional disability to remain in the office of President, hence Article II, and the 25th, which dictates Presidential succession.
Well, I guess we agree to disagree, then. My understanding of fraud is that revelation of fraud after the fact does not change the effect of the actual unknown fraud at the fact, and so the original defrauded act is nullified.
In any event, the way the courts seem to be finally taking an interest in this whole thing, we might have the first Freeper disagreement that gets decided by the Supreme Court! LOL!
As I mentioned to RegulatorCountry, my interpretation of the effects of fraud differs from yours, so we'll have to agree to disagree. But wouldn't it be interesting if our disagreement was finally determined by SCOTUS? : )
Except we're not talking about a contract but an election.
Interesting point, but I still think that the contractual effect would come about in that the involved parties agreed to fulfill certain obligations and then knowingly did not. That's presuming the obligations of elected officials aren't solely moved by criminal law (though God know they should be).
Let her BURN.
If it does, ten bucks says I'm right, lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.