In other words, you don’t have an answer to thw question, so you have avoided it. You have stated that the defendant is President de jure but have failed to address the issue of how that can be so if he is ineligible for the office for lack of meeting the article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement. If one is filling the office in violation of the Constitution he cannot then, by definition, be doing so de jure or the term would be meaningless unless the Constitution is not legally binding.
As to the anonymous lawyers to whom you have spoken: Is there a basis for their opinions or are they just guesses based on such factors as “unthinkablity” rather than legal precedent?
Nowhere in the Constitution does the judicial branch have the power to remove a sitting president. There are two constitutional remedies given to Congress: impeachment and trial by the Senate after obtaining office and via objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote for a oresidential candidate who was ineligible. At the joint session of Congress held to certify Obama’s Electoral College votes any one Senator and any one Representative could have submitted to Vice President Cheney in his role as President of the Senate written objections to Obama’s Electoral votes. No one Senator and no one Representative submitted an objection and Obama’s Electoral votes were certified unanimously. Therefore Obama is the de jure president having been sworn into office on Inauguration Day.
At this point impeachment and removal and defeat at the polls are the remedies.
But if a man is constitutionally inelible to be the President, how is he then a "sitting President" who can only be removed in the manner that a man occupying the office who is eligible must be removed. The question remains one of why the de facto doctrine would not apply to a man occupying the office of president just as it would to a lesser official appointed or elected in violation of the Constitution? Would it not be a question of applying the Constitution and declaring what the law is to expose the lack of de jure authority rather than removing someone who does have such de jure authority? Your assertion, I believe, assumes the de jure status that is at issue.
posted on 01/09/2010 2:28:43 PM PST
(Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
To: jamese777; AmericanVictory
"Nowhere in the Constitution does the judicial branch have the power to remove a sitting president.
If I'm not mistaken, only Orly has sought to have a Judge "remove" Barry from office. Otherwise, it appears that the others have sought to have the courts make a Constitutional determination of weather or not Barry was/is eligible, and if not...find him ineligible. Actual removal would be by some other means as the Constitution only states how the removal of a POTUS is to be handled (not how to remove a usurper).
Unprecedented territory indeed.
posted on 01/09/2010 9:12:40 PM PST
(HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson