Replies

Your scenario requires overt and deliberate subversion of the Constitution,

Running for an office you are ineligible for, then taking that office, doesn't?

Sure my hypothetical was somewhat more extreme and obvious, but no different in kind.

Your objection fundamentally pertains to an alleged fraud perpetuated by Obama. If two or more additional parties operated in concert with Obama - regardless of an utter lack of their independent knowlege of any and all other party(s) - then that rises to the definition of conspiracy. If such conspiracy can indeed be proven, I don't believe that treason is all that far behind the horse in the cart its pulling. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding a hypothetical scenario that the entire Democrap apparatus was involved in perpetuation such alleged fraud onto the populace of these still United States of America (AND last best place to live in the WORLD despite the prevalence of wack-job moon-bat liberals), would anybody found guilty of such high crimes and misdemeanors get sentanced to DEATH? Not even Walker received that punishement.

The latter was guilty of egregious offense to the security of the U.S.A., while the former hypothetical actors could be construed guilty of something far more nepharious: sedition, subversion of the functioning of the government at its highest levels, and inciting rebellion.

If the elites occuping the rarified intellectual levels of the Democrap apparatus were in fact duped by the alleged fraud that Obama is accused of, then the worst that they could be attributed to them would be that of malfeasance. What is the legal bar for criminal malfeasence? Somebody used a term: malice aforethought. Somebody doesn't know what they're talking about; they've been watching too much if that hot shot legal show that was popular back in the 80's. IF Obama could be proven guilty of perpetuating fraud, and everybody is innocent (guilty of nothing but incompetence, gross negligiance, dereliction of duty, involuntary manslaughter, willfull disregard of civic responsibility, being a really really REALLY bad person, etc), then how in the world can the doctrine of de facto officer mandate not be applicable in this present unfolding situation?

I throw ONE thing out there just for poops and grins to see if it might stick: Obama's SCOTUS appointment. Now, suppose until all this gets resolved one (or the other) way, what if her decision is THE one that an otherwise evenly split court is predicated upon? There'd be no end to the ensuing chaos. It'd, quite frankly, be no different than the electronic financial system blinking out for ONE SECOND during any arbitrary trading day.

My point is that some of the damage could be mitigated over time, but in the immediate aftermath of a decisive decision that Obama is unqualified to serve as POTUS, ALL of his actions while acting as POTUS would need to remain standing. Believe me that there'd still be lawsuits a plenty, and lots of Denny Crain's be making names for themselves in the mean time.

Not just on a domestic level, but on the international scene, the perceived continuity of orderly government absolutely needs to be maintained. Imagine what would happen to the value of the dollar if even the slightest wiff of CW2 made itself apparent?

IMHO, there's no comfort to be had in Amd. II if worse actually comes to worse; what's being postulated is actually the destruction of "life" as we know it. Chaos doesn't even have the depth and breadth to describe that which would ensue (not just domestically but internationally).

“Running for an office you are ineligible for, then taking that office, doesn't?”

When this gets to the Supremes the question won't be what the meaning of “IS” is, it will be what the meaning of “ELIGIBLE” is. They will have to “interpret” this word to decide if Obummer was EVER president at all. Just MHO.