Did that case deal with a situation in which the person's appointment or election was not only deficient, but was known to be so by the person in question?
To say that a person who has a good-faith belief in the legitimacy of his actions should in some cases be protected if such belief turns out to be incorrect is not inconsistent with the rule of law. Indeed, without such protections, people's refusal to do anything that would put them at legal risk would tend, in and of itself, to lead to anarchy. Nonetheless, there can be no legitimate basis for allowing people to benefit from actions they know, or should know, to be fraudulent.
Did that case deal with a situation in which the person’s appointment or election was not only deficient, but was known to be so by the person in question?
To say that a person who has a good-faith belief in the legitimacy of his actions should in some cases be protected if such belief turns out to be incorrect is not inconsistent with the rule of law. Indeed, without such protections, people’s refusal to do anything that would put them at legal risk would tend, in and of itself, to lead to anarchy. Nonetheless, there can be no legitimate basis for allowing people to benefit from actions they know, or should know, to be fraudulent.
Obama has operated for more than half a term when no state invalidated his name on their ballots, when Vice President Cheney counted and certified his Electoral College votes without objection from any of 535 members of Congress and after having been administered the Oath of Office by Chief Justice John Roberts. To date, no court has ruled him to be ineligible, no Grand Jury investigation has indicted him for a crime and no congressional investigations into his eligibility has been held.
All of the above is consistent with the legal definition in the de facto officer doctrine of “acting under the color of law.”