(a) This is not a federal court case. This is a state court case by Orly Taitz trying to get Obama (and Feinstein) off the California ballot. Since the Senate has already seated Feinstein and the Congress has already accepted California's electoral votes, the case is moot even if Orly gets the appeal reinstated.
(b) Even if a federal court found Obama to be ineligible, the laws he signed and the appointments he made would still stand. Google "de facto officer doctrine."
Yes, it is a state case, but if it were to be successful, California would doubtless appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court. When a state supreme court decision of ineligibility for the office of the governor ocurred, the governor’s acts were voided. despite the doctrine. In this instance, the U.S. Supreme Court may indeed invoke the de facto doctrine, but due to other peculiarities invovlving the fraud involved by the conspiracy and culpabioity of the Democrat Party, the Supreme Court may well find it necessary to treat this as an illegal government as occurred with the Confederate States of America and the voiding of its acts due to lack of authority. Although unlikely to proceed to a conclusion, history will be made, jurisprudence and otherwise, in any event.
"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
Barry, has had ALL the appearance of being an intruder or usurper since the begining, and even before (a key point).
A lot of that is not correct.
There is abundant Supreme Court authority for the proposition that when a person who is not eligible to hold a position is de facto installed, they do not legally hold the office and their acts are void.
So those acts which take a "president" to make effective are of no force. The two Supreme Court appointments are two good examples; there are others.
But that does not vitiate everything that has happened in his period either.
Absent intervening adjournments or other interruptions, Congress passes a bill; the President has ten days in which to sign it into law; or veto it. If the President does not act in the ten days, the bill becomes law.
So if you view legislation which was passed which he executed as simply without execution because his execution was void; the ten days passes; it would seem to me that the Court would hold the legislation became effective without the signature of the sitting President or action by a sitting President to Veto it.
On the other hand, as we know, if Congress adjourns after the bill is passed but without signature or veto, the Constitution provides that the bill is "pocket vetoed". So if there was legislation in that category, it would not have become law.
Under Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, the Constitution addresses the current situation specifically. When the election of an eligible person as Vice President is certified but no eligible person is certified as President, the Vice President becomes acting President. Since January 2008, Biden has been Acting President.
I believe that some Presidential power has, at the insistence of Mrs. Clinton and Panetta, been exercised jointly or otherwise by Biden.
So a fair amount of action has been taken that stands up as effective.
Obamacare? I am not certain as to the timing of passage and adjournment. I now am inclined to believe that Congress did not adjourn until ten days had passed and thus that Obamacare became law but I have not studied the record sufficiently to render an opinion.
de facto officer doctrine does not apply read the applicable cases....his eligibility has been contested for years, this is no administrative error or nunc pro tunc