Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jamese777
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.
111 posted on 01/09/2010 2:28:43 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: AmericanVictory; jamese777

But if a man is constitutionally ineligible 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.


112 posted on 01/09/2010 2:59:27 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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