My quick answer is that in context - none of those situations were under a faux “president” or fraudulent “Commander In Chief”.
There is no reconciliation in context. Arguments as to whether or not we should ever have set foot in Iraq or whether the ludicrous claims that Bush did not legitimately win the POTUS are not parallel arguments as to whether or not an individual is eligible to even run for an office - let alone set law once in that office illegitimately.
Decisions of a President can always be argued. But a person WILLING to deceive the entire world for the sake of power is an entirely unprecendented and potentially catastrophic event yet to unfold.
I hear your points and they are valid in their own context - but this is not the same subject. Would you agree?
(Although I fully disagree with those who claim Bush ‘stole’ the office or went into Iraq as payback or over oil.)
Yes. That's a fair distinction.
However, I do challenge the "faux president" argument on one major principle: the Republic allowed Zero in.
Just as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, though we know there are no penumbras and emanations in the Constitution...so is Obama the defacto POTUS.
I hate it, and it's possibly a suicide dose, but there it is.
65 million idiots voted FOR him, the opposing party conceded, 300 million Americans tacitly watched his inauguration, the outgoing POTUS validated him and the Chief Justice of the USSC capped it off with a handshake,... he is POTUS.
It is unreasonable to expect a single ruling from a lower court to somehow overturn all the above...even if he is found out.
The bar has been removed.