There is a Constitutional process to remove obama , Congress can void his election and any electoral college votes he received. They would then either call for a new election or certify the next person with the majority of legal votes as
President. I believe that the Democratic leadership knew that obama was ineligible to be President , but protected his campaign because McCain might have defeated Clinton. In my opinion Pelosi and Reid sold out America for their own personal gain. Ask yourself a simple question , If you found out that your doctor did not have a medical degree, would you keep him as your doctor? If he is already doing the “job” there would be no reason to stop using him, right?. We know that obama is not a Natural Born citizen or even if he was born in the U.S. , why would we want to keep him in office?
There is a Constitutional process to remove obama , Congress can void his election and any electoral college votes he received. They would then either call for a new election or certify the next person with the majority of legal votes as
President. I believe that the Democratic leadership knew that obama was ineligible to be President , but protected his campaign because McCain might have defeated Clinton. In my opinion Pelosi and Reid sold out America for their own personal gain. Ask yourself a simple question , If you found out that your doctor did not have a medical degree, would you keep him as your doctor? If he is already doing the “job” there would be no reason to stop using him, right?. We know that obama is not a Natural Born citizen or even if he was born in the U.S. , why would we want to keep him in office?
I will quote a US District Court Judge on this issue with specific regard to Barack Hussein Obama II: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE WHO HAS NOT ALREADY WON THE ELECTION AND TAKEN OFFICE. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accompanied through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through IMPEACHMENT or the succession process set forth in the TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.” — US District Court Judge David O. Carter.
In addition, for more than a century now the Supreme Court has established the “de facto officer” doctrine which very very clearly states “The defacto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under color of official title (Obama was sworn in) EVEN THOUGH IT IS LATER DISCOVERED THAT THE LEGALITY OF THAT PERSON’S APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION TO OFFICE IS DEFICIENT. (Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S., 425,440) (1886).
“The defacto officer 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.”
Finally, do you really expect a Harry Reid controlled Senate with two RINOs from Maine and other wishy-washy moderate Republicans in the Senate to agree to void Obama’s election?