Actually, it’s pretty clearly a hypothetical. The reason we need to make this assumption is that fraud is impeachable, no matter what it’s about. If you want to address the (interesting) constitutional question of whether being ineligible to be president according to Article II is impeachable in and of itself, you have to use such a hypothetical. If you don’t start with the assumption that there was no fraud, the question is simple and boring-obviously fraud is impeachable. It’s impeachable if it’s about your taxes (spiro agnew), in testimony (clinton), about the way you ran your re-election campaign (nixon), or if you lie about your age under oath.
It’s pure idiocy to argue that the hypothetical is meaningless. It’s the only thing that lets us address the interesting question here.
This is another, perfectly good way at getting at the question. But in order to address the constitutional question, we have to start with a serving president who has done nothing impeachable apart from being indisputably 33 years old.
And again, Impeachment is a remedy against wrongful acts while in office. The president isn’t in office when he runs for the first time. So I’m not sure that fraud on FEC materials during an election campaign would be impeachable, if not repeated while in office.
Rather, it was “the most luxurious, expansive building you could imagine.”
I knew I’d forget to check the amendments, whorfin. Previous versions of the law only seem to deal with losing citizenship, so the age limit of 19 years would apply.
I’d note that this provision was invoked as recently as 2004. During the counting of electoral votes, Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones objected to certifying the electors from Ohio to protest voting irregularities in that state. The two bodies resolved into their respective chambers, and voted (overwhelmingly) to certify the results.
I checked California law and for babies born outside of a hospital, a midwife or one or both of the parents, must file a certificate of live birth within 10 days.
Okay, so at Thanksgiving dinner table tonight :rolleyes:, a family member said that a closed session of the Supreme Court will review this matter on December 5. I found this article. Why, after rejection at the state level, and by one SC justice, has Clarence Thomas put this forward for review?
The OP has some flawed assumptions, and while I suspect the introduction of facts may not have any bearing on the discussion, I want to point out a couple of things.
You seriously waited two years and all you’ve got is a Jerome Corsi article on World Net Daily? Which doesn’t even address your claim that the Senate asked for any documentation in 2000. The claim that he produced his long-form birth certificate for a Senate committee in 2008 does appear, but isn’t sourced (it isn’t mentioned in the linked Washington Post article). I’ve seen some weak-ass cites before, but this has to be pretty close to the bottom of the barrel. You’d have been better off letting this thread remain forgotten.
To answer this one, two years later, Justice Thomas was doing precisely what SCOTUS rules of procedure call for. If a “nuisance” litigant makes a petition to one justice, who rejects it, then similarly petitions another justice in a way that suggests he’s “justice shopping,” the second justice brings it to the Conference, which then presumably collectively puts an end to such petitions (except in the unlikely event that at least four justices consider the petitions to have merit). He didn’t do it out of some idea the petition had merit – it’s more like getting consensus to order the annoyance stopped, which no one justice can order individually but they sure can as a Conference.