Replies

Under the Supreme Court’s “de facto officer” doctrine established in 1886 even the orders of an ineligible or illegal elected official must be carried out. The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

Arguably, those cases are not applicable here because they deal with adjective defects in the appointment or designation process.

The situation with Obama is different because the Constitution says that he is not eligible to hold the office of President at all; doesn't make any difference how he got there or what bases he touched or didn't touch along the way.

He isn't a de facto officer because part of the fact is missing. You could certify all day that he was a citizen; or born in the US; that is a part of the office and if he wasn't a citizen or wasn't born in the US, he isn't the officer.

This case has nothing to do with this and zero relevance to the UCMJ.

Quote: Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
"A case where certain bonds were sold in Shelby County, Tennessee. The point of contention was whether the commissioners who were allegedly authorized to sell the bonds were indeed lawfully appointed."

Arguably, those cases are not applicable here because they deal with adjective defects in the appointment or designation process.

The situation with Obama is different because the Constitution says that he is not eligible to hold the office of President at all; doesn’t make any difference how he got there or what bases he touched or didn’t touch along the way.

He isn’t a de facto officer because part of the fact is missing. You could certify all day that he was a citizen; or born in the US; that is a part of the office and if he wasn’t a citizen or wasn’t born in the US, he isn’t the officer.

The US Supreme Court has rejected hearing seven Obama eligibility lawsuits and the only court to actually render a ruling on Obama’s eligibility is the Indiana Court of Appeals on a challenge to Obama receiving Indiana’s electoral votes because both his parents aren’t US citizens. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Obama to be eligible under Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution and just last week, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/23068154/detail.html
Therefore no court decision and no law passed by Congress has declared Obama to be constitutionally ineligible.