[campaignPete R-CT]

In Burton v. United States:
the Supreme Court ruled that a provision of federal law which on its face purported to make one convicted of bribery
“ineligible” to be a United States Senator, could not act as a forfeiture of a Senator’s office, since the only way to remove a Member under the Constitution was by the
Senate exercising its authority over its own Members.

RELEVANT CASE: AN INELIGIBLE SENATOR COULD NOT BE REMOVED (EXCEPT BY THE SENATE).
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Congress+removal+from+office&fr=yfp-t-501&u=lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Recall_of_Legislators_and_the_Removal_of_Members_of_Congress_from_Office.pdf&w=congress+removal+remove+removed+office&d=TA4d1t29TdK9&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=VLhFTADt5rS1TVD7Vsyp9g—

[MHGinTN]

I see your perspective, but tell me, which President is going to remove the one in the Oval Office heading the executive branch. ... What are you digging for, anyway?

[MHGinTN]

The case is not relevent, BTW, because it does not question eligibility to run and hold the office elected to. But that was a nice try.

[El Gato]

the Supreme Court ruled that a provision of federal law which on its face purported to make one convicted of bribery “ineligible” to be a United States Senator, could not act as a forfeiture of a Senator’s office, since the only way to remove a Member under the Constitution was by the Senate exercising its authority over its own Members.

The Constitution most explicitly makes someone not a natural born citizen not eligible to the office of President.

Totally different situation. Impeachment is for President's who misbehave, not for ineligible usurpers.