No, I use “moot” in the context as in “no meaningful results can be obtained”. I just can’t image five years of legislation rendered null-and-void because of a paperwork screw-up a half a century ago.
This is going to become one of the tenets of the fringe loonies who claim things like “the income tax was never adopted properly because Ohio was not a state”.
At some point in the future, there will be books and articles explaining that you can ignore the requirements of the Affordable Care Act because the President who signed it was not legally President.
I’m thinking that $85 billion dollars a month the FED has been passing out needs to be given back.
The only suggestion I have is that you add “hypothetical” to the “paperwork screw-up.” The way you phrase it here, it sounds as if you think there actually was a paperwork screw-up, and pretty much everyone else here thinks there actually was no such thing.
But if the paperwork screw-up is labelled as hypothetical, then I think many of us would certainly agree: even if there had been a paperwork screw-up, the country isn’t going to remove Obama from office, and certainly isn’t going to rescind all the laws he’s signed or the executive orders he’s issued.
(“Gosh, the use of military force against Libya was ordered by someone who wasn’t the president! International war crime! The U.S. is a rogue nation!” etc. etc. Nonsense.)
I have been to court proceedings in which the defendants are members of various militia organizations who claim that they do not have to obey the law because they do not recognize the sovereignty and authority of the US govt for reasons both bizarre amd logically tortured. These people are usually representing themselves, of course -what lawyer will make the case that you can disregard the law 'cause you want to?
It never works. Judges and juries are never sympathetic to that argument. Go figure.
Yeah, they are believers in the secret-magic-key theory of how the universe works, that if only they invoke the smk things will have to happen their way. Then we have to apply the pointed boot of reality to their as…pirations.
For the record (and an issue I brought up back in 2008), state officials never actually determine if candidates for President are constitutionally eligible. One state (Arizona) tried to change that and were labeled racists.
And if you think about it, the states appoint electors and it is the electors that vote for the President so whose responsibility is it to ensure the President meets the constitutional requirements? There have been foreign-born citizens that have run for president claiming that they would not serve (the VP-elect would become president) but who would stop them if they decide to serve?
Benghazi was another manufactured furor, different in degree, not in kind, to the birthers. But the colour of Obama’s skin didn’t have to be spun. When he won the Democratic nomination in 2008, I think a lot of Republicans were smacking their lips thinking America would never elect a black president. Imagine their shock and dismay. A lot of the Republican pushback against Obama looks like plain butthurt at being so wrong.
Since the questions in the OP have been answered and the thread has veered into political commentary, I’m closing it. Those who wish to discuss this further can open a new thread in Great Debates or the Pit.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator