That's not true. It's entirely unclear whether the De Facto Officer Doctrine--which by the way is not part of the constitution-- would even apply here. Not to mention, in Ryder v. United States (1995) the Rehnquist Court unanimously ruled that the De Facto Officer Doctrine did not apply to the judges who had been unconstitutionally appointed to the military court in question, because, amongst other things, those appointments had been made in violation of Article II's Appointments Clause. Relying on this SCOTUS precedent one could reasonably conclude that the De Facto Officer Doctrine does not apply when an explicit violation of the Constitution occurs.
To argue that the De Facto Officer Doctrine would apply even when it explicitly violates the Constitution is to essentially argue that the constitution is meaningless and unenforceable. Such a doctrine would also logically suggest that the constitution is not in fact the Supreme law of the land, since it can be disregarded with impunity by the government--which would also ironically be a violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
Applying the DFOD in the face of a direct constitutional violation would absolutely subvert the law in the name of maintaining order. It would also encourage the violation of the law since those impersonating an officer under the color of law would be able to get away with their acts being upheld even if they explicitly violate the constitution. This doctrine would ultimately subvert the rule of law in the name of saving it. It's a choice between sacrificing law and principle (the constitution) at the expense of order and convenience, or choosing temporary order and convenience at the expense of law and principle . Take your pick.
Let's just keep this as simple as possible. We're not trying to get the Mombasa MF in court because he's the AntiChrist, although that is possible.
We want him in court for forgery and fraud. That the BC is fake is easily proven, because, as I never tire of posting,
In fact, we don't really need him in court at all, unless HE cares to sue AZ for removing him from the ballot, which ought to be done at 9AM tomorrow morning. That, IMNSVHO, is the only way to get the man or his party, in court.
If he chooses not to contest removal from the ballot in one state, so be it. But I believe the damage will have been done to his campaign. Needed: The SoS of AZ to have the courage to enter the history books.
Those seeking "Impeachment" with 120 days to go before an election are just 'Whistlin' Dixie,' especially given the pusillaniminity of the GOP-controlled House ...Their mantra: "Well, he was born in Hawaii...
You have misunderstood the holding in Ryder.
The key passage from Ryder: "Unlike the defendants in Ball, McDowell, and Ward, petitioner raised his objection to the judges' titles before those very judges and prior to their action on his case. And his claim is based on the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution--a claim that there has been a "trespass upon the executive power of appointment," McDowell, supra, at 598, rather than a misapplication of a statute providing for the assignment of already appointed judges to serve in other districts.
So we see two grounds upon which the Court relied upon for not applying the de facto officer doctrine:
(1) He raised his objection to the qualification of the judges in the legal proceedings prior to their ruling. Of course it would have been nonsense to ignore his legal challenge to the judges' right to sit and then after the judges rule, claim that it is "too late, their decision is now protected by the de facto officer doctrine." He raised his objection in a timely manner BEFORE the ruling. The de facto officer therefore should NOT apply in those circumstances. The Court got it right.
(2) The case was not merely a question of whether an officer (judges in this case) failed to meet a specified eligibility criteria (such as age or residency). It was whether the manner of appointing the court itself complied with the Constitution.
The facts in Obama have nothing in common with Ryder. There is no analogous claim as in Ryder that the composition of the office of the presidency itself violates the Constitution; indeed, one can't make that claim, because the office of the president is established directly in the Constitution itself.
And because of standing issues, the Courts have refused to entertain claims on the merits that Obama is ineligible, unlike in Ryder. It would be analagous to Ryder if a petitioner were to challenge a pending but not completed executive action by Obama that affected him and after his challenge was raised but before the final resolution on the merits of Obama's eligibility the executive action was taken, following which a decision on the merits as to ineligibility is made by the court; clearly, the de facto office doctrine, as in Ryder, does not support giving effect to that executive action.
Obama's case, on the other hand, is a straightforward application of the de facto officer doctrine. The law requires that to be eligible to the office he be 35 years old, lived in the U.S. for 14 years and be a natural born citizen. If, unknown to the citizenry at large and the Congress, at the time of qualification the person holding the office did not meet one of the qualifications for office, then the facts would be a textbook case of the de facto officer doctrine.
To argue that the De Facto Officer Doctrine would apply even when it explicitly violates the Constitution is to essentially argue that the constitution is meaningless and unenforceable. Such a doctrine would also logically suggest that the constitution is not in fact the Supreme law of the land, since it can be disregarded with impunity by the government--which would also ironically be a violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
Applying the DFOD in the face of a direct constitutional violation would absolutely subvert the law in the name of maintaining order. It would also encourage the violation of the law since those impersonating an officer under the color of law would be able to get away with their acts being upheld even if they explicitly violate the constitution. This doctrine would ultimately subvert the rule of law in the name of saving it. It's a choice between sacrificing law and principle (the constitution) at the expense of order and convenience, or choosing temporary order and convenience at the expense of law and principle . Take your pick.
The de facto officer doctrine in no way violates the Constitution.
Let's go back to first principles:
In my view, I believe the courts would hold that the power to determine whether the person chosen for president has qualified for the office is exclusively given to the joint session of Congress at the time of the counting of the votes, and that the Constitution does not permit the courts to usurp that function by second-guessing the determination of that joint session of Congress that the person chosen is either eligible or ineligible.
Therefore, the ONLY method for removing a president where there appears later evidence that the president was not in fact eligible is through an impeachment/removal proceeding in the House and Senate.
The legal nature of this proceeding is NOT to overturn the finding by the original joint session of eligibility; the Constitution does not contemplate re-opening the joint session of the counting of the votes AFTER the person has been found qualified and installed. Rather, it would be removing the president for a high crime and misdemeanor in the nature of fraud for deceiving as to his qualifications.
So as a technical matter, by impeaching and removing him the House and Senate do not legally rescind the original finding of the joint session that the president was eligible. Rather, they find him guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor and remove him with effect from that point on. The actions taken by the president prior to his removal would continue to have legal effect.