What would happen if the birthers turned out to be right about Obama?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Interrobang

Which was my (likely flawed) understanding of the laws surrounding the situation. I hypothesized that Biden would likely have been aware of Obama's lack of eligibility. If, in this situation, it turned out that Biden was truly unaware and not complicit, I agree that there would be no reason to consider impeachment. However, it does seem staggeringly unlikely that the VP would be unaware if the President were ineligible for the office.

Why? If this conspiracy was already in place, why would they bother to bring Biden in on it? He cannot strengthen any further-he would only become a liability.

[BlinkingDuck]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Everyone so far seems to assume Obama would have to be removed from office. I would hope that, in order to avoid a constitutional crisis, Obama would step down and Biden would become president. It would be very strange for Obama to fight it, if it were really, 100% certain. He could avoid the whole mess by just stepping down. Easy peasy.

Agreed. Most likely outcome.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Everyone so far seems to assume Obama would have to be removed from office. I would hope that, in order to avoid a constitutional crisis, Obama would step down and Biden would become president. It would be very strange for Obama to fight it, if it were really, 100% certain. He could avoid the whole mess by just stepping down. Easy peasy.

Sure, but if the assumption is that he is not an NBC, then there is a corresponding assumption that he knows he isn't, and hence isn't too particular about whether he is eligible to be POTUS.

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Precisely.
So, if the Constitution as written can be circumvented out of expediency and people be retro-actively made natural born citizens in one instance, then it can be in others when also expedient - such as "when the guy has been acting President for 4 years already".
Can't think of a better reason to give anyone honorary citizenship-with-all-the-trimmings, really ; and averting the confusion and chaos inherent in trying to retcon his presidency seems eminently expedient to me.

ETA: that was a reply to 2sense, naturally.

Right. Another way out of the crisis is for Congress to pass a law that defines "Natural Born Citizen" in such a way that Obama is defined as one. Like, "Anyone who is an American citizen is a Natural Born Citizen". Then Obama continues as president.

Or, we could pass a quick Consitutional Amendment to remove the "Natural Born" requirement, and make it retroactive.

A still other way out of the crisis is for congress and the Supreme Court to simply ignore the issue, and continue to act as if Obama is eligible to serve as President. If, say, some members of Congress try to impeach him on grounds of ineligibility, the impeachment could be voted down. When various people sue, the lower courts rule against them and the Supreme Court upholds, or refues to grant cert.

If the voters don't revolt, then what?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Precisely.
So, if the Constitution as written can be circumvented out of expediency and people be retro-actively made natural born citizens in one instance, then it can be in others when also expedient - such as "when the guy has been acting President for 4 years already".

It wasn't circumvented.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The Constitution explicitly extended eligibility to those who were grandfathered in. They didn't just assume those people could be president.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by RNATB

It wasn't circumvented. [...]

They certainly threw commas around in weird places back then, didn't they ?

Depending on how one chooses to parse the punctuation, this article might just as well be taken to mean that there's no meaningful difference between "natural born citizens" and plain old "citizen", or even that no one can be president who wasn't around at the time the Constitution was adopted ("after me, the Flood !") .

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, yes, but one of the basic rules of statutory construction is that you read laws in a way that makes sense.

[Kobal2]

Well that's just oppressive .

[Chronos]

Quoth Brian Eckers:

Well, I'm assuming for the sake of the hypothetical that regardless of the exact formula, he is found to have been ineligible. Heck, assume it turns out that he was only 34 years old when elected, if it matters.

That hypothetical, I think, is even weirder, because that's an eligibility condition one can gain. Given how long it took for the proof in the OP's example, the hypothetical president would have been ineligible at the time of assuming the office, but eligible at the time the proof came to light.

On the question of retroactively declaring all laws he signed void, there is actually precedent, of a sort, against that. One of the arguments used by tax deniers is that at the time of the ratification of the amendment allowing income taxes, there was some bit of paperwork concerning Ohio's statehood that didn't have all of its Is dotted and Ts crossed, and that the amendment was therefore never really ratified, and that there is therefore no real income tax. This argument is taken by the courts with about as much seriousness as one would expect.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well that's just oppressive.

It's more of a guideline, really.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Following the hypothetical, I don't think the will of the voters would, or should, matter. If someone is not allowed to hold the office then it is immaterial if he is wanted. Look back to when Arnold S. was super popular early in his Governership. 90% of the people could have wanted him—hell they could have all written his name down—but it still wouldn't matter.

My guess is that every bill he signed into law would be undone. And THAT could cause a nightmare. But I don't see any way around it really.

The legal determination that Obama was, in fact, eligible was made by the electors who voted for him and the Congress that certified the result. Those are now over and done, and would remain so even if Barack Obama went on national TV, peeled back his skin, and revealed wires and circuits beneath it.

Congress could impeach him for the "high crime and misdemeanor" of occupying the office of President under false pretenses, or the 25th Amendment procedure could be invoked on the grounds that the newly discovered ineligibility renders him "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". In neither case would already-completed Presidential acts be retroactively affected.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

The legal determination that Obama was, in fact, eligible was made by the electors who voted for him and the Congress that certified the result. Those are now over and done, and would remain so even if Barack Obama went on national TV, peeled back his skin, and revealed wires and circuits beneath it.

Congress could impeach him for the "high crime and misdemeanor" of occupying the office of President under false pretenses, or the 25th Amendment procedure could be invoked on the grounds that the newly discovered ineligibility renders him "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". In neither case would already-completed Presidential acts be retroactively affected.

Right. The election is over and he was sworn in. Of course the House would vote to indict/impeach but the Senate would never vote to convict.

In any case, even if so, there is NO legal definition of what a "natural born citizen" is.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

In any case, even if so, there is NO legal definition of what a "natural born citizen" is.

Isn't it defined in Wong Kim Ark?

[Untoward_Parable]

Nothing, it would be too late by now. Did it matter to the nazis that Hitler was part Jewish? Nope, because once the power is installed it is self-sustaining and has the defense of the mechanisms of mankind in all their glory.

Though the birther thing is nonsense anyway and the Hitler stash was awesome till that vegetarian douche ruined it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Interrobang

Which was my (likely flawed) understanding of the laws surrounding the situation. I hypothesized that Biden would likely have been aware of Obama's lack of eligibility. If, in this situation, it turned out that Biden was truly unaware and not complicit, I agree that there would be no reason to consider impeachment. However, it does seem staggeringly unlikely that the VP would be unaware if the President were ineligible for the office.

It seems to me equally staggeringly unlikely that Biden would play along with such a fraud, let alone facilitate it.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

It seems to me equally staggeringly unlikely that Biden would play along with such a fraud, let alone facilitate it.

He's an American leader, he would participate in any fraud if he saw an upside for himself lol. (Again though the birther thing is nonsense)

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Isn't it defined in Wong Kim Ark?

That defines who is a US citizen by birth. Not a "natural born citizen", which has never been legally defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...citizen_clause

[grude]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

That defines who is a US citizen by birth. Not a "natural born citizen", which has never been legally defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...citizen_clause

From your link:

The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth", including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

The only places I have ever seen an alternative opinion offered are fringe to say the least, I don't think there is any doubt.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by grude

From your link:



The only places I have ever seen an alternative opinion offered are fringe to say the least, I don't think there is any doubt.

That's a pretty solid curbstone opinion. However, like I said, the term has never been legally defined. SCOTUS, etc has never ruled upon it.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

That's a pretty solid curbstone opinion. However, like I said, the term has never been legally defined. SCOTUS, etc has never ruled upon it.

Minor v Happerset?

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Lynch v Clarke?

Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. . .Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Minor v Happerset?



Lynch v Clarke?

wiki:

"Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state's laws allowed only men to vote."

"The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke,[32] which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. "

bolding mine

Thus altho both cases mentioned "natural born citizens" neither was ruling about such in the light of Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution.

[Bryan Ekers]

Okay, so if it became known that all along, Obama was a woman....

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Thus altho both cases mentioned "natural born citizens" neither was ruling about such in the light of Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution.

What are you talking about?

[Saint Cad]

Here is the reality:

It would be up to Congress to impeach/convict Obama or have his cabinet declare him unfit (as a non-NBC) under the 25th Amendment. The real question is do either have the political will to do so. If not, it would take a court case for someone affected by a law passed during the last 10 days before the adjournment of Congress or a bill vetoed by Obama to challenge the status of the Presidency. If Obama is not the president the Biden is.

Let's assume the worse case scenerio in which the Court finds that Obama was never President and all of his acts were invalid. Congress immediately passes an act that affirms every law that passed and Biden signs it along with an executive order affirming all of Obama's executive orders. The only veto that would be affected is the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010.

The larger question is the outcome of all of the decisions Obama made during the war. I suspect a convienent fiction that Biden acting as an advisor to Obama agreed with every decision he made and decisions required by Biden qua Commander-in-Chief would be signed retroactively (as long as it is not an ex post facto law which these would not be). In short, everyone, even the Republicans, would been over backwards to make the situation as stable as possible withing the confines of the Constitution.

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Let's assume the worse case scenerio in which the Court finds that Obama was never President and all of his acts were invalid. Congress immediately passes an act that affirms every law that passed and Biden signs it along with an executive order affirming all of Obama's executive orders. The only veto that would be affected is the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010.

The larger question is the outcome of all of the decisions Obama made during the war. I suspect a convienent fiction that Biden acting as an advisor to Obama agreed with every decision he made and decisions required by Biden qua Commander-in-Chief would be signed retroactively (as long as it is not an ex post facto law which these would not be). In short, everyone, even the Republicans, would been over backwards to make the situation as stable as possible withing the confines of the Constitution.

This is nonsense. The court has no power to rule that Obama "was never President". He was sworn in as President. He is the President. If it turns out that he was actually an android all along, that wouldn't mean he was never president, it would mean he was ineligible to be elected president.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

This is nonsense. The court has no power to rule that Obama "was never President". He was sworn in as President. He is the President. If it turns out that he was actually an android all along, that wouldn't mean he was never president, it would mean he was ineligible to be elected president.

Look at the scenerio I set up.
I sue someone claiming that I fall under the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. The other side says, "That's not a law, Obama vetoed it." Now let's say the Court (SCOTUS of course) rules that it is a valid law because Obama as a non-NBC was not eligible to be President and so Biden as President under Amendment 20, Section 3 and he did not veto the bill and so it is law.

I admit it is fanciful, but then again, before 2005 would you have said that a city could seize private homes not to cure urban blight but rather to give the land to a private company?

[Lemur866]

Except the court would rule no such thing. They would not and could not rule that Obama was never the president, because it would be impossible (as you realize) to actually nullify all the actions taken by the executive branch during the last 3 or more years. Military officers who were commissioned by Obama issued valid orders. Judges appointed by Obama made valid rulings. Bills signed by Obama became law. Decisions made by Cabinet members appointed by Obama stand.

If we discovered some horrible decisions made by Obama before he was removed from office, those decisions would have to be repealed or changed explicitly. Obama would have been the real President, not Biden. Biden was never sworn in as President, Obama was.

If we want to add speculation on what would happen if not only did Obama turn out to be an android, but also the Supreme Court went crazy, and also Congress went crazy, and also the American people went crazy, well, we could do that. But it's hard to predict how crazy people will act, and so we can justify any hypothetical scenario on the basis that the people making the decisions are insane.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Except the court would rule no such thing. They would not and could not rule that Obama was never the president, because it would be impossible (as you realize) to actually nullify all the actions taken by the executive branch during the last 3 or more years. Military officers who were commissioned by Obama issued valid orders. Judges appointed by Obama made valid rulings. Bills signed by Obama became law. Decisions made by Cabinet members appointed by Obama stand.

If we discovered some horrible decisions made by Obama before he was removed from office, those decisions would have to be repealed or changed explicitly. Obama would have been the real President, not Biden. Biden was never sworn in as President, Obama was.

If we want to add speculation on what would happen if not only did Obama turn out to be an android, but also the Supreme Court went crazy, and also Congress went crazy, and also the American people went crazy, well, we could do that. But it's hard to predict how crazy people will act, and so we can justify any hypothetical scenario on the basis that the people making the decisions are insane.

So instead the ruling is that he was President despite not being an NBC in direct violation of

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;

but of course he's not President anymore?

You seem to think that if Obama were never President then it nullifies everything. I found one law that Obama vetoed that would be a law. Worse case scenerio is that some laws passed in the last 10 days of the session would have to be repassed. I also believe that anything that could be made retroactive would be. Ex post facto laws are not allowed, but how many laws passed in the last 10 days of Congress were violated? Refer to Calder v Bull to see what would not be allowed. Military appointments? Given the nature of the war in Afghanistan . . . <insert reference to thing that lets you smoke in space a la Thank You for Smoking>. Judicial appointment? Can they not be retroactive?

Look at what happened after the Civil War. When it was convienent to view the South as having seceeded (like representation in Congress) they did that. When it was convienent that they never had seceeded (Texas v White) they did that.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Thus altho both cases mentioned "natural born citizens" neither was ruling about such in the light of Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution.

They were both trying to define what a "natural born citizen" as mentioned in the Constitution was, though. I'd say they were ruling about such in the light of Section 1 of Article Two of the US Constitution. Lynch v Clarke, the New York case, even goes so far to consider the hypothetical of a president born in the US to foreign born parents. But it specifically looks at the Constitutional definition of citizenship, asking what the writers of the Constitution meant when they talked about citizenship (and finding the answer in English Common Law and Vattel.)

Minor, while it deals with women's suffrage, starts with the question, "Are women citizens" (It asks two questions...are women born in the US citizens, of which it says yes, and then, does being a citizen give you the right to vote, of which it says no). So, in doing so, it attempts to define what citizenship is under the law.

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

You seem to think that if Obama were never President then it nullifies everything. I found one law that Obama vetoed that would be a law.

Yes, if Obama were never President, then any bills he vetoed wouldn't have been vetoed. And if he were a unicorn he'd eat rosepetals and fart rainbows.

The courts aren't going to declare that Biden was really president the whole time. Obama was president. The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to declare that Obama was never president, or is no longer president. Only Congress has the power to remove Obama from office, through impeachment, or via the 25th Amendment.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

The courts aren't going to declare that Biden was really president the whole time. Obama was president. The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to declare that Obama was never president, or is no longer president. Only Congress has the power to remove Obama from office, through impeachment, or via the 25th Amendment.

That's ridiculous!
In 1868, SCOTUS took it on themselves to use a case on government bonds to declare whether or not the Confederacy ever seceeded. They took it on themselves to declare who was elected President in 2000 according to many on this board. Why is it such a stretch for SCOTUS to say that the Notarization Act was not properly vetoed?