Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eligibility question
vanity | me

Posted on 07/05/2012 11:29:36 AM PDT by gop4lyf

Eventually we will get a president other than 0bama. If that president has the fortitude to actually investigate thoroughly the background of 0bama and were to find, without a shadow of a doubt, that 0bama was indeed ineligible to serve as President, would that make any bill that 0bama signed null and void?


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; History; Society
KEYWORDS: eligibility; naturalborncitizen; obamacare
sorry for the vanity
1 posted on 07/05/2012 11:29:40 AM PDT by gop4lyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

This was kicked around a bit earlier - the unfortunate fact is, no, it would not.


2 posted on 07/05/2012 11:36:10 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

My understanding is that it would create a Constitutional crisis, but I’m not sure that it would invalidate anything he signed.

As a way to nullify the health care mandate, it’s an attractive option but probably the longest shot.

I would like a Constitutional scholar’s take on this, however.


3 posted on 07/05/2012 11:38:51 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

All laws would be declared invalid, all judicial appointments, replaced, all money he spent would be reprinted and bin Laden would come back to life.


4 posted on 07/05/2012 11:38:56 AM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

I think the real answer is who knows...

There is not law or presidence for it. The founders never saw this one coming. It would be VERY difficult to unspend money, but law could be removed from the books.


5 posted on 07/05/2012 11:39:36 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente (NRA Life Member & www.Gunsnet.net Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

You’re assuming that bin Laden is dead.


6 posted on 07/05/2012 11:41:43 AM PDT by gop4lyf (Socialism is the political dream of the unachiever, the excuse maker, and the lazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf
would that make any bill that 0bama signed null and void?

No.

Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995).

I suspect this was not the answer you were hoping for.

7 posted on 07/05/2012 11:43:26 AM PDT by Drew68 (I WILL vote to defeat Barack Hussein Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

Actually, some one asked Mark Levin about this and he was punted. The problem with this line of thinking was that the election of the President, whoever that might be, is certified by the US Congress.


8 posted on 07/05/2012 11:45:31 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf
If it were a Republican President, everything he did would immediately be declared null and void because "it benefits the rich."

If it were a Democrat President, everything he did will stand because "It was good for the Middle Class."

9 posted on 07/05/2012 11:46:11 AM PDT by eCSMaster ('Nancy Pelosi is a DINGBAT.' - Gov. Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

The chances of Romney investigating Obama’s eligibility are about as slim as him repealing Obamacare.


10 posted on 07/05/2012 11:57:36 AM PDT by Boiling point
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Let's not stop here. The case also says:
In Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962), we declined to invoke the de facto officer doctrine in order to avoid deciding a question arising under Article III of the Constitution, saying that the cases in which we had relied on that doctrine did not involve "basic constitutional protections designed in part for the benefit of litigants." Id., at 536 (plurality). We think that one who makes a timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the appointment of an officer who adjudicates his case is entitled to a decision on the merits of the question and whatever relief may be appropriate if a violation indeed occurred.
This particular decision isn't a very good example for Foggers because it's one where an application of the de facto officer doctrine was overruled:
We therefore hold that the Court of Military Appeals erred in according de facto validity to the actions of the civilian judges of the Coast Guard Court of Military Review. Petitioner is entitled to a hearing before a properly appointed panel of that court.

In Obama's case, there's no question that objections have been raised PRIOR to his taking office and the seating of such a person in direct opposition to the eligibility clause violates a constitutionally afforded protection of the people via the eligibility clause.

11 posted on 07/05/2012 12:01:54 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf
If that president has the fortitude to actually investigate thoroughly the background of 0bama...

Not to worry. That won't happen.

12 posted on 07/05/2012 12:02:35 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

no kicking around required

no bill becomes law without the president’s signature

and of 0bama was ineligible, then he was not the president

the bill never became law on the first place


13 posted on 07/05/2012 12:03:08 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

Our next President is going to have his hands too full with trying to get the economy back on track and national security issues to deal with a predecessor’s malfeasance.

We need a working President, and he’s going to have an uphill trek without these kinds of distractions.

That’s for history. Shoulda been done 5 years ago.


14 posted on 07/05/2012 12:19:33 PM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

G. W. Bush was challenged to enforce the law for Bill Clinton’s lawlessness and I’m reasonably sure the mantra in DC has not changed, “let’s just move on.” Remember, those in DC are all above man’s laws.


15 posted on 07/05/2012 1:00:31 PM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

Bills do NOT require the president to sign;a bill automatically becomes law after,I think,ten days, if passed by Congress and the president chooses not to veto or sign it;signing is really a ceremonial approval.


16 posted on 07/05/2012 1:05:43 PM PDT by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

>Eventually we will get a president other than 0bama.<

.
Eventually perhaps, but that does not mean that he/she will have the courage to overturn any laws that Obama has put in place. Courage has not been the qualification of any POTUS since Reagan.

I fear that the damage that Bambi has caused to this country is permanent — he knows it and he relishes it.


17 posted on 07/05/2012 1:24:21 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf
Bill overturned.

Pelosi that verified eligibility tried, convicted and sent to prison.

Obama, tried, convicted on multiple counts of identity fraud including using a false SSN to file income taxes and sent to prison.

Justice Roberts impeached for failure to uphold his oath of office.

American liberty restored. Constitutional Republic restored.

All future elected officials monitored closely to ensure all laws are as enumerated in the Constitution.

Americans live happily ever after and get on with life.

How do you like me so far?

18 posted on 07/05/2012 1:32:05 PM PDT by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

the defacto officer doctrine would not apply...


19 posted on 07/05/2012 1:34:16 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

I think anything he signed it would stand because he was legally president at the time of signing .


20 posted on 07/05/2012 1:43:24 PM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

hmph. after a brief check, seems you are correct. the president is really just there to stop bills from becoming law, if he wants.

there goes that belief in how the system worked

of course, all the appointments would be null & void. and any judgements made by those appointments would also be null & void

any military actions would also be brought into question, as those actions were not lawful

in short, a Constitutional crisis.


21 posted on 07/05/2012 1:44:50 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

If 0bama is shown to be a usurper and ineligible, then he is nothing more than a private citizen masquerading as president and illegally exercising the powers of that office. Joe the Plumber probably has as much claim to the office as the kenyan illegal alien, so why would ANY of his orders, proclamations, or “laws” he signed be valid?


22 posted on 07/05/2012 2:13:18 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Get that bastard out of MY White House!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: El Laton Caliente
The founders never saw this one coming. That's because the Founders assumed an intelligent and responsible electorate.
23 posted on 07/05/2012 2:39:42 PM PDT by ArmyTeach (Our liberties, we prize and our rights we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sten

I really doubt there would be a Constitutional crisis.

Think of it in terms of other criminal acts:the corner store is not “unrobbed” the poor clerk is not “unshot or undead” because the perpetrator of the acts is brought to trial,convicted,and sentenced.Even the execution only serves to ensure that the particular criminal will not re-offend and MAY deter others who fear being caught and punished.

The problem is that ,the Constitution gives Congress the authority to seat or refuse a seat to putative winners of at least a Conressional election.Congress as a body could say, refuse David Duke a seat even though he got 80% of the vote in a fair election,whilst it could also seat Al Franken if he was statisically tied in an electrion with known fraud.There being no other Constituional mention, I think the position that once having been recognized by Congress as the winner ,and dealt with as if he is the legitimate holder,a person IS the legal officeholder.Sort of like conn-law marriage:if everyone acts as i it were so,then it becomes so.That said,he can still be impeached or otherwise removed for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The best we can do is vote out the “one” and as many of his enablers as possible.


24 posted on 07/05/2012 3:02:48 PM PDT by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf
How do you like me so far?

I like what you're smoking.

25 posted on 07/05/2012 4:46:19 PM PDT by Drew68 (I WILL vote to defeat Barack Hussein Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

No. The supreme court would overturn nothing, even in the worst case that he was, for instance, “born in Kenya”.

The Court would bend over backwards to say Obama was elected, sworn in, and served legally. (Mostly to avoid a crisis.)

Read a book like “The Nine” to learn about how the Supreme Court looks issues.. Most of their decisions go along with the “will of the people...”


26 posted on 07/05/2012 6:34:25 PM PDT by bhl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gop4lyf

If it is discovered that The Moron occupying the WH is a fraud, and there is no doubt that he is, the very least that should happen is jail with no pension and no library or any other benefits that usually are awarded ex-presidents.


27 posted on 07/06/2012 8:31:48 AM PDT by llotter (Without Responsibility, People Will Act Irresponsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

Actually as the head of the executive branch it is the President’s job to oversee the implementation of laws enacted by Congress;he was never supposed to become a pseudo-king ,making up laws on his own.Any executive order by any president should only have been for the purpose of carrying out the will of the Congress.


28 posted on 07/08/2012 11:02:04 PM PDT by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson