Replies

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

No.

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

"The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient.

, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). "The

doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence."

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

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.