Posted on 10/20/2009 1:53:28 PM PDT by rxsid
John at OCT makes a good point:
I think Gary Kreep’s argument was much stronger than Orly’s. Obama can not be impeached for his ineligibility because being ineligible in not a crime.
Yes, Obama can be impeached on fraud and other crimes based on his eligibility, but he can’t be impeached solely on his ineligibility.
However, Obama can still be removed. Provisions in the Constitution state the POTUS can removed if he dies or resigns. However, when the POTUS dies or resigns, he is not impeached.
Further, the POTUS can be removed if the POTUS has a condition that renders him with the inability to discharge his duties. Being ineligible would fall under this. While the courts can’t remove the POTUS from office, I submit that the courts certainly have the power to determine if Obama is ineligible or not since this ties directly to a consitutional provision.
With a judgement that Obama is ineligible, Congress would compelled to act and they treated Obama as if he had died, resigned, or had a stroke. No impeachment would be necessary and Biden would become the POTUS.
Whatever4 at OCT makes a good point:
Minor parties also can be harmed even if they have no shot at winning. Federal matching funds depend on the results of this election. “Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.)
The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party’s popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote.
The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate’s popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.”
That argument runs into a couple of legal problems. Federal courts, including SCOTUS, do not have the jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions in the abstract, by giving an "advisory opinion" to Congress. They have the power to decide constitutional questions only if that question comes up in the course of deciding a lawsuit. Because the court has no power to impeach Obama or order him to resign, it cannot give Congress an advisory opinion on Obama's eligibility.
Precisely! Thank you!
The problem with their analysis is that there is no “right” to be president. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.
******
In the 2012 presidential primaries , will Democratic Parties in each state demand that candidates provide long form birth certificates along with their applications before they are allowed to put their names on the ballots?
Will Secretary of States in each state demand that 2012 presidential candidates attach a long form birth certificate to their applications before they will be allowed to put their names on the primary ballot?
Where do you find Berg in this? His name appears NOWHERE in the docket. It may be that this new attorney, Larry Joyce, is his surrogate, but Berg’s name doesn’t appear anywhere in the docket or the briefs that were filed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.