If Obama is proven not to be a citizen, what would happen?

Factual Questions
21

There isn’t the slightest scintilla of evidence that anyone who is not qualified has ever run for President with any backing. (I’m excluding lone insane types and talking about major party candidates.) To my knowledge, only Henry Kissinger and Arnold Schwarzenegger (both Austrian born) have even let people toy with the idea of putting them forward.

This whole thread smacks of assuming that the Birther racists have any evidence at all to back up their claim that Barack Obama is not a natural born American.

22

The requirement to be born a citizen was influenced, like everything else in the Constitution, by Britain’s experience. England had been forced to turn to foreigners - first the Prince of Orange, and then the Electors of Hanover - to fill the throne. So whenever some European prince marched his army into the Netherlands or Hanover, Britain tended to get dragged into the fight. The Founders didn’t want that to happen to America.

Theoretically, the same argument applies today. But when you look at all the foreign wars that our good old American-born presidents have dragged us into - France, Tripoli, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Mexico again, World War I, Russia, Nicaragua, Haiti, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Iraq, Panama, Somalia, Haiti again, Yugoslavia, Iraq again, and God knows what I’ve forgotten - how much more trigger-happy could a foreign-born president possibly be?

23

Score! Obama definitely was not a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution! :cool:

24

There have been at least 10,000 GD threads on this topic. You can start another one over there, but you’ll get the same arguments. There isn’t any political will for such an amendment so it’s both theoretical and utterly meaningless, i.e., perfect for GD. :slight_smile:

What people in this thread haven’t mentioned is that barring disaster of Biblical proportion, Obama will run again in 2012. My prediction is that the original Hawaii certificate of birth will have to be publicly released, whatever the law on that might be. Not that there is any question of its existence in any sane mind, but to quash the nonsane Republican majority.

25

The OP asked a “what if,” question. This means we assume the situation in the post is correct whether or not valid. It could apply to Mr Obama or anyone else holding the office.

As others said the first option is impeachment. Would this work? Most likely, no one likes to be conned, especially the voters. If you could show a president, elected to office didn’t meet the qualifications, it’s hard to justify NOT to impeach him

If any Congressman didn’t they’d likely face a HUGE backlash at the next re-election. If any Senator didn’t vote for removal same thing.

OK step two would arrive if congress refused to impeach or remove the president who didn’t meet minimal qualificaitons.

In this case it would be the Supreme Court. This would result in several things.

The court would rule the person bringing suit has no standing to bring suit, thus skirting the issue.

The court would rule it’s poltical and again skirt the issue.

Or the court would hear the case.

So now we’re on the third step, the Supreme Court could rule that since he was duly elected that he can stay. That would end it. Remember the US Constitution isn’t what IT says, it’s what the Supreme Court says it is.

For instance, the Supreme Court once rule they government has no right to regulate child labor. There was even an amendment that never got ratified to try to overturn that choice. Of course today, government at every level regulates child labor? Why, because the US Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

Another instance is when the Supreme Court (Dred Scott case), said that no black person, regardless of free/slave status could be a citizen. They passed the 13th amendment to overrule the case.

On to the next step, the Supreme Court could say, “No the president did not meet qualifications and therefore isn’t president.”

This would result in the most serious problem. The Supreme Court can make any ruling but as Andrew Jackson said, “The Surpeme Court made the decison, now let them enforce it.”

In this case the Vice President would be president and we could have dual governments.

At this stage it’s a free for all for discussion with anything from a civil war with one half the nation supporting the unqualified president verus the vice president, to anything

When people ask these question, it’s just for fun.

To answer Mr Obama proved he was qualified isn’t an answer. It isn’t what the OP asked. A type of question like this is just fun to talk about, whether it’s Mr Obama or anyone else, but it’s really a debate or opinion.

26

Most constitutional law commentators agree that Congress determines what qualifies as a “high crime or misdemeanor”, and that the phrase does not refer to statutory crimes alone.

27

It would be enforced by the candidate’s opponent(s). If George W. Bush was actually a natural born citizen of Moldova, then John McCain (during the Republican primary) or Al Gore (during the election) would have found out about it and exposed it.

28

Fraud if it could be shown that the candidate knew that he was ineligible, but knowing that, he gave false information to the Federal Election Commission.

29

Actually the scarier scenario is that the public likes the president and doesn’t care, and the members of Congress in the president’s party are such partisans they don’t care, either.

(I could talk about Clinton’s impeachment here, but a GD or BBQ Pit thread would break out.)

I’m not particularly comfortable with shrugging off the Constitution because what it says is inconvenient, or because it affects “our guy.”

30

Markxxx has a point. The OP does ask, in essence, “Assume an ineligible candidate is elected; what then?” And my answer, based on the one piece of relevant evidence other than the Constitutional text itself that I know of – i.e., that probable dictum in one of the Orly Taitz cases – is that the proper deciders of qualifications would appear to the the Congress at the point where they receive electoral votes. I’m fairly certain that any Federal district court would regard it as a political question, to be resolved by the political branches.

To explore this a bit, contemplate some single person from California casting a write-in vote for Gov. Schwarzenegger for President, either through loyalty to him or as a protest against the major party candidates. This is of little effect – it would be subsumed in millions of other votes. Now, suppose a write-in campaign is moutned, and Gov. S. gets California’s electoral votes. When these are submitted to Congress by the Secretary of State of California is the point at which his qualifications to be chosen President become relevant, because it is at that point that the President is actually chosen: the popular votes serve to assign the electoral votes in each state, and the combined electoral votes of all states end up choosing the President when counted by Congress.

31

FWIW, political question doctrine has been mentioned in more than one of the birther cases, not all of which are Orly Taitz’s.

32

I’ve never heard of quo warranto being used in a Federal context; that was a common-law remedy and has not been incorporated into Federal law, AFAIK, but I could be wrong. I agree that impeachment would be the best (and perhaps sole) means of removing someone from Federal office if it was proved after he had taken office that he was constitutionally disqualified from holding it.

33

That is not true. There are no “strict rules”.

A “Certificate of Live Birth” issued by Hawaii means/proves virtually nothing.

Almost anybody could have gotten a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii.

Even the president of china Sun Yat-sen got a certificate of live birth from Hawaii way back in 1904.

…and Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro, who admits to being born in Indonesia, also has a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth.
(Hawaii hands out “Certificates of Live Birth” like candy on Halloween)

34

Are you serious? This is your argument? Please…when you come back please bring relevant facts.

from the wiki article " In March 1904, he obtained a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,[6] issued by the Territory of Hawaii, stating he was born on Nov. 24, 1870 in Kula, Maui[7]" Please note the date–March 1904. Now when did Hawaii become a state where the birth certificate would have any relevance? August 21, 1959. So how is something that happened in a place of the world that wasn’t a state related somehow? The Territory of Hawaii was granted self governance in 1900 and remained controlled by wealthy plantation owners for the next 59 years until it became a state. A territory that was more like the wild west is not relevant to this issue in my opinion. The territory of Hawaii also allowed importation of cheap foreign labor at the time too.

Can you show me where someone has obtained a certificate of live birth AFTER Hawaii actually became a state who wasn’t born there?

Now can you provide a credible link that his sister has a certificate of life birth from the STATE of Hawaii? Again keep your prejudices out of it and provide a link from a credible site (ie. no right wing whack sites) that she states although she was born in Indonesia she has a Certificate of life Birth from Hawaii. I highly doubt you can produce this, which unfortunately goes against the heart of your argument that Hawaii hands out the certificates like candy.

35

If you mean a photocopy of the original, long form birth certificate, the Hawaii statutes specifically allow photocopies of the original certificate to be made:

The computer printout certificate, which the Obama campaign released to the media, is an abstract, containing most but not all of the information in the original certificate. Because we have been assured by the Hawaii Director of Health that Obama has an original, long form birth certificate on file and that the director has seen it himself, there is no explanation of why Obama has not requested a certified photocopy of it. Just because it may not satisfy every skeptic is not a good excuse.

36

Good god. There are still Birthers upset because an uppity black man got elected president?

Still I suppose when you are fighting ignorance, it is good to know who is in the army of the dumb. Newest members: Walloon and Susanann.

37

Hey Scruff? I am not a “Birther”, and I voted for Obama. So cut it out.

38

Bolding mine. There is no need to provide a certified copy as the verification accomplishes the same thing. Frankly if the Obama team DID release a certified copy then there would be outcries that ‘they’ altered it. By having a third party (ie. the Department of Health) verify it, seems to me the more prudent road.

[§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.

** (b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.**

 (c)  Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.

 (d)  The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy  shall be one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.

 (e)  Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1]
39

Because this has to be posted in every discussion of this.

FactCheck.org.

40

Not from a political standpoint, and this has moved beyond a narrow legal issue to a broader political problem. This is not a court of law, it’s the court of public opinion. You fight ignorance with facts, facts, and more facts, not less.