If this is true, then I move the discussion shift from Obama to a what-if about Chester A. Arthur if it was proved he’d really been born in either Ireland or Canada, as was alleged at the time. Would you revisit all Federal legislation from 1881-85? Surely some of it is still relevant today.
I suspect magellan has me on ignore. I invite anyone who wishes to ask him on my behalf.
Don’t be silly, he’s a white Republican. 
Common mistake. Reagan’s ancestors were not from the Netherlands. The reason he was nicknamed “Dutch” was because he was one quarter Elm tree.
Well, that explains the fungus.
This whole idea has come up because of a relatively few people cant accept the fact that a non WASP was elected.
Once he’s sworn in, that issue is settled. That was already explained to you by people who know more about the legal process than either of us.
It’s crystal clear that the Constitution does not say what you want it to say. The Constitution doesn’t leave the president’s eligibility perpetually up for review or say that any laws signed by an ineligible president are retroactively invalid. Once he’s sworn in, he’s president. Sorry. Congress can remove him and it could try to repeal the laws he signed, but that’s unrealistic. There is no process for any of the stuff you want to happen, so you can’t just say “Do over!” and then improvise a bunch of solutions. That’s just as unconstitutional as the eligibility violation we’re discussing if not moreso. Perhaps you could lobby Congress to set up some procedures for how they would deal with this situation if it ever came up, but you can’t just assert that the solution already exists. It doesn’t.
I agree it doesn’t exist. You need to admit it doesn’t exist. You’re claiming that it doesn’t exist then claiming that the law is clear on it. Nope. Doesn’t work that way. Imagine that a a NYC Medical Examiner was found to not have the proper credentials. Do you think all the cases he was involved in would not be revisited?
That’s because cases were decided based on expert testimony. Being President requires no expertise. Being under 35 or born elsewhere doesn’t change decision making ability.
Where did she live outside the U.S. between her teen years and the birth of Barack? I do not recall any requirement to live in a particular state for any length of time and the family movements of which I was aware were all within the contiguous states until they moved to Hawaii after it became a state. I also do not recall any questions regarding George Romney whose parents had lived in Mexico for twelve years before his birth.
Has there ever been a democracy that retroactively declared one of its leaders ineligible (and all related legislation null)? Seems to me the kind of rollback magellan is advocating is the hallmark of military coups.
Where does this desire to not only remove the President from office, but actually unmake his Presidency come from?
Racism.
They want to pretend that the country didn’t elect a (mostly) black president. Twice.
He’s only halfly black.
[/math pedant]
What about the retirement benefits though? If he admitted that he wasn’t really an American citizen, could he be refused the secret service for life and the retirement paycheck?
- Respect for the Constitution.
- Logic
There’s some logic to your idea, as a couple of us said earlier. There’s nothing Constitutional about it.
That’s a much more reasonable question. Declaring a presidency void prospectively is far less unworkable than doing it back to Inauguration Day.
(1) is only true insofar as your argument respects parts of the Constitution. It entirely ignores others (and the clear intent of the founders to leave the issue of presidential qualifications to the political process.)
Again, the Constitution is mum on this. We have to figure it out. Both your idea and mine are attempts to do that within the a Constitutional framework. And neither of them is unConstitutional. Yes, we disagree. But if you want to criticize my idea because the Constitution doesn’t say that’s thing thing to do, then you have to accept that same flaw with your and every other solution.
It ignores nothing. It acknowledges that the solution has not been outlined and uses logic to craft a solution. As does your idea. It’s just a matter of what we each focus on and emphasize as important. It seems crystal clear to me that that Founders intended that no one would be able to be President if they didn’t meet certain basic qualifications. I glean that from their words stating so.
I think yours is- it gives Congress a power that doesn’t exist in the Constitution.