[rxsid]

"What makes a person a “de facto officer”?

If the candidates in the contested elections set up office and start acting like they won does that make them de facto officers?

-------------------------------------------------

I think a reasonable argument could be made that Barry has discharged the duties of the office of POTUS with the CLEAR appearance of being an "intruder" and/or "usurper."

"To satisfy the doctrine, the officer must be in the unobstructed possession of the office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper."

http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/SUPCT/160/op92-113.txt

[butterdezillion]

And how can he be said to be “unobstructed” when he has a court case rightly noting that he was never even lawfully declared to be the winner of the electoral vote?

The obstruction to his exercise of power has been sitting in front of all our faces this whole time.

Saying that Obama is the de facto officer is like saying that the Huskers won last year’s game against Texas when the referees were still deciding whether there was any time left on the clock. We could act like we won all we wanted but until the decision was made that there was a second left on the clock and that second had ticked off, all our celebration was just wishful thinking.

The certification of the electoral vote has been on hold this entire time. There is nothing either Obama or Roberts could do that would change that fact. The courts have still to determine whether there is one more second on the clock - whether Obama was ever LAWFULLY declared to be the winner of the electoral vote. Roberts and Obama can break out the champagne and pour the water bucket and Gatorade all over each other all they want, but it doesn’t change the legal facts.

Obama cannot be the de facto officer while this obstacle is still in his way.