The House of Representatives has the "sole" power of impeachment. Between elections, impeachment (and the 25th Amendment) is the only legal path to the removal of a White House occupant. The Supreme Court has no power to remove presidents.
No one is asking for a court to remove him. All it would take to get congress moving is a court ruling that says the document posted is a forgery.
>> Let’s fight the battles we can win.
>
> The House of Representatives has the “sole” power of impeachment. Between elections, impeachment (and the 25th Amendment) is the only legal path to the removal of a White House occupant. The Supreme Court has no power to remove presidents.
Question: How can the Supreme court remove a President if the Constitution itself prevents the person in question from BEING the President?
You are correct that the Supreme Court cannot remove a president.
But they can define "natural born citizen" once and for all.
The fear is that if the do define "natural born citizen" as a person born in the country to two citizen parents, then where does that leave Obama? It puts the onus on Congress to act or be in conflict with the Court.
Congress does not want to act on this, and the Court does not want to put Congress in that position.
If the Supreme Court were to rule that simply being born here is enough to be president, then it opens up the presidency to any anchor baby whose mother crosses the border within days of delivery, which (I believe) most constitutional scholars would agree was never the intent of the Framers. The Framers were concerned about generational security of their newly found country (see the Preamble of the Constitution), and influenced by the history of European monarchical intermarriage as diplomacy. Kings and queens were often the natives of other countries who married to settle wars.
This is what Thomas Paine wrote about in 1791 in The Rights Of Man, when he compared the United States presidency to European monarchies.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
-PJ
Even with a House impeachment, the trial is in the Senate. Do you think the Dem senators will bother looking at the evidence if we impeach the druggie? Considering their reaction to irrefutable evidence against the philandering perjurer, I don’t see any point in dividing our efforts in that direction.