Let's get this straight. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States under our Constitution. The various legal actions challenging that are from losers who have not a prayer of winning. I've addressed that issue in another thread already.

But let's address the theoretical issue of what would happen if during a campaign and election it was suddenly discovered a candidate was not qualified as a natural born citizen. This depends on timing and I'll address the timing in order.

Scenario #1: After party nomination and before the election. If sufficient times remains the party can nominate a new candidate. For example, the Democrats under the current bogus scenario could declare Hilary the nominee. States could, at their discretion, remove the disqualified candidates name from the ballot. Or states could advise on the ballot that a vote for the disqualified candidate is a vote for the new nominee. In some states you technically don't even vote for a candidate, but for electors. Those states would not have to change a thing. You would vote for electors who then vote for who they want.

If sufficient time did not remain for the party to nominate a new candidate, or for states to change their ballots, then the issue would fall to the electors. That's key here. As a technical matter you are not voting for a candidate, but rather for a slate of electors who (presumably) would vote for that candidate. If said candidate were disqualified the electors are then free to vote for who they want.

Scenario #2: After the election but before the Electoral College meets. Every elector is free to vote for who they want. Only loyalty holds them to a candidate. Electors as part of a slate for a candidate disqualified could vote for whoever they want. Votes for the disqualified candidate would not be counted under the 12th Amendment when Congress officially certifies the electoral college vote as described in that amendment. If that resulted in no candidate receiving a majority of EC votes, then the election is thrown into the House of Representatives (currently controlled by Democrats).

Scenario #3: After the Electoral College Votes but Before Congress Certified the Results: Similar result to #2 above. Votes for the disqualified candidate do not count. If no candidate gets a majority of all votes possible the election is thrown into the House.

Scenario #4: After Electoral College Votes and After Congress Certifies the Vote but Before the Swearing In. The 20th Amendment takes over and pursuant to Section 3 of that Amendment "If . . . the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President Elect shall act as President."

Scenario #5: After the Swearing In It Is Revealed the President Was Disqualified: This presents the toughest issue (and no doubt will be the subject of a pending novel). Article II, Section 5 states that no person except a natural citizen "shall be eligible to the office of President." But arguably eligibility is moot after one is President.

Hopefully a President in such a circumstance would resign. But what if he does not? The Constitution proscribes two means of forcibly removing a President from office. The first is impeachment. But that can only be for high crimes and misdemeanors. So if the "President" was a party to the fraud that falsely qualified him, he can be impeached, and the VP takes over.

But let's get crazy here. What if the President was not a party to the fraud? What if he is completely innocent and had no idea that Mom somehow fraudulently got him a "Born in the USA birth certificate" until after he was elected? He finds out about the fraud only after being sworn in. Presumably he should resign, but let's carry this further, what if he says "not my fault" and refuses to resign?

Suddenly this does become a ticklish Constitutional crisis. There is no legit high crime or misdemeanor to accuse the President of for purposes of impeachment. Switch now to Amendment 25 and the second means to forcibly remove a President from power. In particular, Section 4 of said Amendment reads:

"Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President,."

Here's the irony. This process was clearly written to deal with Presidents temporarily incapacitated by physical or mental infirmary. However, I think it could be used to remove a President from power on grounds that he is Constitutionally incapacitated from discharging the duties of the office. Again, the VP takes over.





"Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable." --The Wizard of Oz

Definitely an interesting problem to ponder. But yeah, IMO Obama would have to have cojones the size of basketballs to run for President knowing he was constitutionally ineligible, and he'd have to be an idiot to think that nobody would find out. Obama doesn't strike me as that ballsy or that stupid.

Thanks for making the effort @ keeping the PC board (@ AOL) alive. Perhaps, with your indulgence, once AOL finally closes all the message boards, etc, we could all meet here & continue the discussion, no matter what side we are on (I am the independent centrist - conspiracy fact person, lol).
Regarding the Obama birth certificate, @ this juncture, even if it IS for real, i.e. that Obama does NOT have a legitimate birth certificate and thusly is not born IN America, there are far too many people IN on the lie (perhaps fearful for their lives, which would possibly be more accurate)to have the truth come out now. The supreme court is in the pockets of those who truly run this country, i.e. 'the banks' and exposure of the truth, vis a vis Obama would be exposure of the grand lie operating in D.C. since 1913 & prior. It would mean exposure of many truths regarding many unsavory moments of our collective American history which have hitherto been covered up & buried in a grand effort by this 'banking' auxiliary of our great nation. So, if the Republicans/concervative$ have the ball$ that the Democrat$ didn't have and fight this (the Democrat$ cowardly didn't fight pre$ident unelected's dictator$hip of the la$t eight year$) we shall either blow open the entire truth of what has been going on behind the curtain and the men and women who truly operate this country in subterfuge, OR the threat of harm insures the status quo and nothing will be done about it (the more likely scenario)
Sorry if I am not clear about it but I am in a hurry to get this post in and get about some other important tasks.

Ill1lIlI1Il
Styx

I've been studying the SC for awhile. They really are not "in the pockets" of anyone. They have been quite willing to take on the establishment before and defy well ingrained authority. Brown v. Topeka comes to mind as an example as does Gideon v. Wainwright.

Obama's birth certificate is as certain as your's or mine or anybody's. He was born in Hawaii, just like I was. The birth certificate has been published on the net, the state of Hawaii has authenticated under its Republican governor administration, and there is a contemporaneous announcement of his birth in the Honolulu Advertiser. The notion that all that is faked is utterly implausible to sensible minded people.

You can read my analysis of the merits of some of the lawsuits about this at: http://www.network54.com/Forum/594658/thread/1224631342/last-1225136706/A+Legal+Analysis+of+%26quot%3BObama+Is+Not+a+Citizen%26quot%3B+Lawsuit.



"Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable." --The Wizard of Oz

That bottom line is that Constitutionally any challenge to a President's qualifications should be raised at the state level when the State is determining it's electoral college representation. This was attempted by Birthers at the time but every State in the Union accepted Obama's status as a natural born citizen.

If not done at the State level that there is another Constitutional opportunity to challenge a candidates qualifications when the Congress certifies the results the election. A campaign by Birthers was initiated to do just that. Even so, that campaign failed to get a single Congressman to accept their arguments that the President was not a natural born citizen as Congress unanimously voted to certify the election for Obama to include EVERY member of the opposing party.

There is no Constitutional basis for the courts to challenge the election of a President so certified by Congress and sworn in to the office. The ONLY constitutional means for removal of a sitting President, for any reason, is not through the courts but rather by Congress through the impeachment process in Article I of the Constitution or through the incapacity provisions of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. Period.

Accordingly each and every case seeking and demanding judicial challenge to the President's status is without standing and completely frivolous and without merit. This would be true even IF the Birthers had credible evidence challenging the President's status as a natural born citizen, which they do not. The repetition of such frivolous cases, particular after repeated dismissals by courts in prior cases with clearly stated court notice of their frivolous nature, begs for the courts to impose sanctions on those bringing such cases in accordance with the law, as they have now started to do.

"A man never drinks anything that a plant lives in" --DBone (A Real Man).
http://vimeo.com/4938173

Today Judge Carter dismissed another one of Taitz's cases. The judge said exactly what I have been saying for months. I quote:

"The combination of Article I and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment leads the Court to conclude that there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of the removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political departmentthe Legislative branch . . . 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 accomplished through the Constitutions mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment . . . The process for removal of a sitting presidentremoval for anyreasonis within the province of Congress, not the courts."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD?autodown=txt

"A man never drinks anything that a plant lives in" --DBone (A Real Man).
http://vimeo.com/4938173