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

[whorfin]

@Saint_Cad

You are of course correct that if injured I would have standing in court. What I was talking about was if the Federal government just had a general disregard for a Constitutional provision. If we want conspiracy theories, let’s say they refuse to call a Constitutional Convention despite 2/3 of the states calling for it. I understand that the state has standing but aren’t we all affected when the government isn’t held to the Constitution?

But you miss my point. If you have a final decision maker (whether congress or the courts), and it ignores the constitution, you have the same problem regardless of who it is. You ask them to decide something is unconstitutional. It is clear to you that it is. They either refuse to hear the case, or conclude that you lose. How is your problem any different?

The fact that congress is the final decision maker as to presidential eligibility simply is orthogonal to your concern–the Court could also reach the ‘wrong’ conclusion, and you’d still have no remedy.

Although not a birther, I think that the lawsuits against Obama are a good case in point.

No, they aren’t.

The fact that the certification was filed 4 days after the birth should be enough to show that the birth was in Hawaii. But the lawsuits showed a failure in the system that at no point in the system does anyone actually check to make sure the presidential candidate is eligible.

Let’s be precise --there is no constitutional requirement that a presidential candidate be eligible to serve. So whether or not it’s a good idea, on general principles, to check–there is, once again, simply no constitutional qualification for a presidential candidate. Even if (let’s say) John McCain was born abroad to foreign citizens (the first half is even true), he violated no provision of the constitution by running for, and wouldn’t have violated any constitutional provision by being elected president.

If ineligible, he would first violate the constitution if he took office. (This also brings up the point that Obama isn’t even the best example of questionable eligibility in the 2008 election. John McCain was (1) born abroad, and (2) only made a citizen by right of birth based on his place of birth due to a law that was passed after he was born (but was retroactive). He’s obviously a NBC (because of american parents, and because of the law, even though it was retroactive), but it’s a much more interesting question than the citizenship of a person born in a U.S. state to a U.S. citizen mother).

At what point do we stop and say, “Wait a minute! You need to prove your eligibility to <fill in blank - state election officials, Congress, Federal Election Commission, Cecil> to run for President or Vice-President.” If Governator Ahhhnold wanted to run, at what point would he be disallowed?

From a constitutional standpoint, never. The constitution allows Arnold to run for president.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 would seem to tie the hands of Congress if the credentials of the electors are signed off by the state’s executive.

True, but again, this is as it should be. Congress decides if someone becomes president-elect by winning a majority of the votes in the electoral college. As before, there is no constitutional provision that creates an eligibility requirement for president-elect based on citizenship (as I said before, the 22nd amendment does in fact create a qualification to be elected-namely that one has not already served two terms as president—but no candidate since that amendment took effect has ever violated it.

Congress would violate the constitution were it to reject electoral votes because the candidate they were for was ineligible to serve. Constitutionally, the president-elect does not need to be qualified to serve as president.

I think that is the sort of situation where no one has standing (because of lack of jurisdiction) but in a way EVERYONE has standing because disregarding the Constitution at such a fundamental level hurts everybody.

Again, before you make an argument like this, please be precise. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. Even if you had standing, you would lose. You would lose whether or not any candidate was a natural-born citizen, because Queen Elizabeth the Second is constitutionally qualified to run for president.

Bottom line–there are two issues here: (1) someone should determine if a serving president is qualified. Sure. Congress. The problems you seem to have with them don’t seem to be any different than the problems that could exist were the Supreme Court to decide.

(2) Someone should determine if a presidential candidate, or president-elect is constitutionally qualified. Sure. Everyone in the world is constitutionally qualified for those two posts–so that will be an easy decision.

[whorfin]

Missed the edit window–but to add:

It’s simply incoherent to contend that we need to protect the constitution by imposing a requirement found nowhere in that constitution. There is no constitutional requirement that a candidate, or president-elect be eligible to serve–and the constitution is not violated, or injured by an unqualified candidate running.

Now, thinking pragmatically, it might or might not be a good idea to make a candidate for president demonstrate their eligibility (if so, the same is true of any candidate for an office that has some eligibility requirement)–but that concern has no constitutional weight. They don’t violate the constitution till they take office.

[Saint_Cad]

@whorfin

But you miss my point. If you have a final decision maker (whether congress or the courts), and it ignores the constitution, you have the same problem regardless of who it is. You ask them to decide something is unconstitutional. It is clear to you that it is. They either refuse to hear the case, or conclude that you lose. How is your problem any different?

Actually, I didn’t miss your point since we were typing concurrently.

I 100% agree with you. I vehemently disagree with a few of SCOTUS’ decisions such as South Dakota v. Dole and Kelo and the Dems feel the same about Bush v. Gore. But SCOTUS is always right even when they’re wrong (unless they overturn themselves). I guess what frustrates me (being a Federalist) is when the government runs roughshod over the Constitution with no system in place for the common people to do anything about it. Whether I agree or disagree with the final decision, I’d rather have the Court be a final arbiter than avoid the issue. Like I said, even if they say it’s a political question, at least they force someone to deal with it even if it’s a “He’s a citizen. Get over it birthers.”

Fuck!!! I’m starting to sound like Glenn Beck. Better take some of my progressive pills before I start buying gold.

[whorfin]

@Saint_Cad

Actually, I didn’t miss your point since we were typing concurrently.

Fair enough.

I 100% agree with you. I vehemently disagree with a few of SCOTUS’ decisions such as South Dakota v. Dole and Kelo and the Dems feel the same about Bush v. Gore. But SCOTUS is always right even when they’re wrong (unless they overturn themselves).

Well, but this is a necessary factor in any system where you have a system to resolve disputes, and where there is finality to that system. I don’t view it as a bad thing. There are plenty of bad SCOTUS decisions–and endorsing a court of final appeal does not endorse those–but bad decisions aren’t anywhere near enough to either (1) get rid of the courts, or (2) allow endless appeals.

I guess what frustrates me (being a Federalist) is when the government runs roughshod over the Constitution with no system in place for the common people to do anything about it.

First of all, so far, there really hasn’t been any showing that (at least in this context), the government has “run roughshod” over the constitution. Where, in this context, is the violation?

Sure, there is a risk of violation if a (1) genuinely ineligible candidate gets elected, and (2) isn’t impeached. To me, the remote possibility of any such violation just isn’t enough to make it worth spending any serious effort to prevent–not enough to pass one law, let alone fifty laws testing eligibility for candidates, not enough to be worth spending any money on, and so on. There has been no real threat of (1), and I have enough hope to think that congress will do its duty if necessary–if the ineligibility is in fact beyond dispute. In Obama’s case, the fact that Congress hasn’t acted is, in my opinion, probably because any reasonable person would be satisfied he is a natural-born citizen, and that there is no need to go further.

But beyond that, there is a remedy if congress, and the courts blatantly abuse the constitution. Un-elect the bums, and then vote in people who’ll impeach. Takes a while, and requires widespread support–you need a lot of people to agree that it is really “abuse”–but that’s not accidental.

First, judges are difficult to remove for a reason–so that they can make decisions they view to be constitutionally correct, even if dramatically unpopular, without fear of being fired for doing so. Second, requiring a supermajority to convict in the senate is a check to make sure the “high crime or misdemeanor” is really bad enough to justify such a remedy.

Whether I agree or disagree with the final decision, I’d rather have the Court be a final arbiter than avoid the issue. Like I said, even if they say it’s a political question, at least they force someone to deal with it even if it’s a “He’s a citizen. Get over it birthers.”

Well, first of all, the Court is avoiding the issue, in part, because, as many have noted, impeachment is whatever congress says it is, because the constitution makes Congress the final arbiter of whether to remove a seated federal official from office.

But beyond that, I disagree with your premise. Birthers aren’t going to go away–even after a court ruling. The rulings to date haven’t dissuaded them. They didn’t go away when Obama presented a birth certificate that is legal and valid for any purpose you care to name–a certified document that would be sufficient to prove his place of birth in any court, to get any kind of passport or ID, to name just two examples. They didn’t go away when he pointed out the birth announcement in a 1961 newspaper.

Seriously–Obama has proven his place of birth to a far more persuasive degree than you or I will ever need to. He has done so, even though the “evidence” of his foreign birth is nothing more than bald allegations and fake documents. To my mind, that is enough for any reasonable person–or if that isn’t enough, it’s hard to think of what would be.

That is (on a tangential note), I would suspect, one reason Obama is unwilling to show “the long [birth certificate], with the doctor’s signature.” First, legally, it is no different to what he has already released. Further, I think he realizes, IMHO, quite correctly, that whatever he provides won’t be enough to the birthers who are still out there. His statement he was born in Hawaii? Not enough–they wanted his birth certificate. His birth certificate? Fake. The certification by the (republican) governor of Hawaii that his birth certificate was accurate? Lies. Do you really think the birthers wouldn’t come up with some reason why the so-called “long form” is insufficient?

[md2000]

@whorfin

But beyond that, I disagree with your premise. Birthers aren’t going to go away–even after a court ruling. The rulings to date haven’t dissuaded them. They didn’t go away when Obama presented a birth certificate that is legal and valid for any purpose you care to name–a certified document that would be sufficient to prove his place of birth in any court, to get any kind of passport or ID, to name just two examples. They didn’t go away when he pointed out the birth announcement in a 1961 newspaper.

Seriously–Obama has proven his place of birth to a far more persuasive degree than you or I will ever need to. He has done so, even though the “evidence” of his foreign birth is nothing more than bald allegations and fake documents. To my mind, that is enough for any reasonable person–or if that isn’t enough, it’s hard to think of what would be.

That is (on a tangential note), I would suspect, one reason Obama is unwilling to show “the long [birth certificate], with the doctor’s signature.” First, legally, it is no different to what he has already released. Further, I think he realizes, IMHO, quite correctly, that whatever he provides won’t be enough to the birthers who are still out there. His statement he was born in Hawaii? Not enough–they wanted his birth certificate. His birth certificate? Fake. The certification by the (republican) governor of Hawaii that his birth certificate was accurate? Lies. Do you really think the birthers wouldn’t come up with some reason why the so-called “long form” is insufficient?

Just out of curiosity - maybe I’m out of touch with the whacko fringe, but is there any hint of positive evidence that Mrs. Obama - a pregnant 19yo white woman - took an airplane flight half-way around the world at 8-1/2 months along or more, simply to give birth in the third world? In those days, most of the flight would have been on propeller planes, I bet. Hmmmm… DC3’s or if you’re lucky, DC-6’s - that would make for a long flight. And having made that overwhelming effort, she then took all the necessary steps from her hospital bed in Africa to cover up the fact and plant false evidence such as newspaper announcements within days - instead of proudly announcing “I’m in my husband’s homeland and we have a child!!”? Occam’s Razor…

My original question up above was “surely there’s an analogous and more likely situation - where a congressman is elected but is ineligible to serve due to constitutional residency requirements?” Same question - constitutionally mandated requirement. In 200-plus years nobody’s hit that brick wall and had to have their case decided, either in court or by impeachment?

[whorfin]

@md2000

Just out of curiosity - maybe I’m out of touch with the whacko fringe, but is there any hint of positive evidence that Mrs. Obama - a pregnant 19yo white woman - took an airplane flight half-way around the world at 8-1/2 months along or more, simply to give birth in the third world? In those days, most of the flight would have been on propeller planes, I bet. Hmmmm… DC3’s or if you’re lucky, DC-6’s - that would make for a long flight. And having made that overwhelming effort, she then took all the necessary steps from her hospital bed in Africa to cover up the fact and plant false evidence such as newspaper announcements within days - instead of proudly announcing “I’m in my husband’s homeland and we have a child!!”? Occam’s Razor…

It is perhaps stating the obvious to say no such evidence exists. Also, as you note, if shereally wanted her child to appear to have been born in the US, there was an easy solution–don’t get on the plane, and give birth in hawaii.

One of the most confusing parts of birther arguments (though none of it makes much sense) is why someone would leave hawaii, undertake a difficult and dangerous journey in order to give birth elsewhere, but then immediately try to make it look like she gave birth in hawaii.

My original question up above was “surely there’s an analogous and more likely situation - where a congressman is elected but is ineligible to serve due to constitutional residency requirements?” Same question - constitutionally mandated requirement. In 200-plus years nobody’s hit that brick wall and had to have their case decided, either in court or by impeachment?

I’m not aware of any. I’d also note that congressmen aren’t impeached–they are removed by the house. Art. I, S5. (the difference is that a 2/3 vote in the house is required, but there is no senate action, let alone a senate trial). (the same applies to senators–all you need to remove one is 2/3 of the senate). Similarly, no electoral college for either congressmen or senators.

So while it would be an interesting analogy, I’m not sure it would be exactly applicable.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

[whorfin]

@md2000

My original question up above was “surely there’s an analogous and more likely situation - where a congressman is elected but is ineligible to serve due to constitutional residency requirements?” Same question - constitutionally mandated requirement. In 200-plus years nobody’s hit that brick wall and had to have their case decided, either in court or by impeachment?

Upon further research: there are several cases of congressmen being expelled by their house–the most recent being Jim Traficant. United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia

What I can’t find, and believe don’t exist, are cases where (1) someone sued to force congress to expel a member, or (2) to refuse to qualify someone.

This is consistent with the constitutional grant to each house of the power to act as the sole judge of its members’ qualifications.

So this is actually, having thought about it more, it is a very helpful analogy–because it shows that (1) when the constitution says congress, rather than the courts, is empowered to fire people from certain offices, the courts respect that, and (2) when the constitution says a body is empowered to determine whether individuals are qualified for office, the courts respect that. It would suggest that the courts would also refuse to override congress’ determination as to whether a president was properly elected, or should be impeached due to ineligibility.

[Saint_Cad]

@whorfin

What I can’t find, and believe don’t exist, are cases where (1) someone sued to force congress to expel a member, or (2) to refuse to qualify someone.

Al Franken.
IIRC he sued to have the governor to sign the certification of election. Without that he couldn’t be seated.

Before that, Loretta Sanchez. Her opponent sued to prevent her from being seated. Congress acknowledged that there was some voter fraud but not enough to change the results so they seated her and the suit was dropped.

I think there have been a couple of cases where someone sued on residency grounds but IIRC, they were always ruled as a state political question left to the executive.

[whorfin]

@Saint_Cad

Al Franken.
IIRC he sued to have the governor to sign the certification of election. Without that he couldn’t be seated.

Franken isn’t on point–he sued the governor-not congress, and wasn’t suing to get seated, but to get the certification signed. Totally different things. Congress would have been within its powers to seat him before the certification–but they (quite properly) chose not to.

[Saint_Cad]

@whorfin

Franken isn’t on point–he sued the governor-not congress, and wasn’t suing to get seated, but to get the certification signed. Totally different things. Congress would have been within its powers to seat him before the certification–but they (quite properly) chose not to.

Ummmm . . . that’s what I said. I misunderstood your number 2. However Loretta Sanchez is an example of what you’re looking for.

[whorfin]

@Saint_Cad

However Loretta Sanchez is an example of what you’re looking for.

True–and it is interesting to hear of an example. By your account of it, however, it doesn’t add much to the story (since the suit was dropped before any ruling was made–so it doesn’t help us understand how a court would rule).

I probably should have been more precise about what I was trying to say–I don’t think there are any examples of someone successfully suing congress to compel it to either (1) seat them as an elected congressman or senator, or (2) refuse to seat somebody else as an elected congressman or senator–since anyone can bring a lawsuit–but being able to sue doesn’t imply that a court has the power to order congress to use its authority to evaluate the election/qualification of its members in a certain way.

Further, since the resolution was that Sanchez was seated by congress, it is at the very least entirely consistent with my understanding of how things work–that each house congress is the exclusive judge of the qualifications of its members, and that courts (quite properly) won’t interfere with that process.