What if the Birthers are right?

Factual Questions
41

I’ve already said, I think that restriction will be removed anyway in the near future and under pressure from Republicans wanting Schwarzenegger to stand. They may even be hoping to press for it while pretending that it is a Democrat plot to protect Obama. Conspiracy theorists are usually conspirators.

I’d guess that if it all turned out to be true, only actions he had undertaken independently, and possibly any by his appointees and their position, would be invalidated. Anything Congress had passed would be valid by authorisation of Congress.

It would have to be proven in a legal impeachment and a failure to impeach would leave him legally in the clear. My guess is that if any of it were true and could be unquestionably proven true with documentation from Kenya, whatever has replaced the British Colonial Office, the sworn testimony of his parents, the Grand Mufti, the Pope and the Dalai Lama, he would do a Nixon and resign. By law he would innocent of all charges since never proven guilty.

It’s hogwash anyway. If there had ever been anything in it, wouldn’t the same gang have raised it to disqualify his candidacy from the start?

42

I say again there is no factual answer to that question. No controlling caselaw exists. No statute covers it. People can say well I think it would go this way, or I think it would go that way, but nobody knows.

43

I am as ignorant and naive about this issue as can be. I discarded it out of hand during the election cycle, believing that it was a non-issue smear tactic by the right.

Does this issue have any real legs or not? There seemed to be some opposition to actually producing Obama’s birth certificate, and it seemed to take longer than usual to do so, especially if there wasn’t an issue to begin with.

Why the controversy? If he’s a US citizen, he’s a US citizen, right? Simply (and quickly) producing a birth certificate would (or should) quell any such nonsense. Why does this persist?

44

Arnold Schwarzenegger sings a new tune?

45

He has produced a birth certificate. But the birthers claim that this document – while accepted by, say, the State Department as proof of birth – is not the real birth certificate and that there should be another.

(There is another, long form document birth certificate that exists – according to the testimony of witnesses – in the Hawaii Public Records office, but they are not allowed to release this to the public.)

The problem is that even if the hidden birth certificate were released, birthers would just find ways to argue that it’s a fake document.

46

Your objection has been noted. Perhaps there is no specific case law or statutes regarding the US presidency. Are you certain that no such situation has ever come up with any officeholder anywhere?

Please read my previous post.

THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS THREAD IS NOT TO DISCUSS THE LEGITIMACY OF THE CLAIMS.*

Please restrict the discussion to the legitimacy of an officeholder’s actions in the event he or she has been found to be ineligible to the office after the fact. Factual responses rather than opinions are to be preferred.

Given that there are already threads in GD on the birther controversy, I am more likely to close this thread rather than move it if it continues in this direction.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

47

Ditto.

48

Except that those producers can no longer sell any of the porn she was in prior to being 18.

Does that mean the FBI would no longer be able to enforce any legislation signed into law by Obama after such a “reveal”?

49

Doesn’t matter, as whatever happened elsewhere would not be controlling on the OP’s facts, which are specific to Obama. Bricker can’t answer this question. Gfactor can’t answer this question. I can’t answer this question. No lawyer can answer this question. Nostrodomus could have possibly written a cryptic quatrain about this question, but he’s been dead for centuries, and thus, is highly unlikely to post in this thread.

To answer this question, one would need to peer in to the future, accurately gauge the political climate, note the composition of SCOTUS as well as Congress, account for attention diverted to the latest Bimbo of the Month scandal, review new legislation and/or Constitutional Amendments, check Obama’s approval rating, see what the new President wants to happen, and flip a coin while holding a rabbit’s foot.

50

Objection noted.

51

While I disagree with Oakminster’s position, the core of things: that there’s no simple, factual answer is probably correct. I think we can get fairly close, discussing how constitutional law has been evaluated before, but like any political/legal postulating perhaps this is more appropriate for GD than GQ.

52

As I said, there are already a couple of threads in GD about the birther controversy, so I see little point in moving it. Answer it as best you can in GQ, if you think you can contribute.

53

My best guess is that practicalities will trump legal naval gazing. You can’t just hit the reset button after 8 years. Too much water under that bridge. His presidency, and all official acts, would stand.

54

The OP questioned what would happen if, after a presidency concludes, the President admits to not being a citizen, thus “ineligible.” Some of the comments have broadened the scope of the question to what would happen if, during his/her presidency, the President is found to be “ineligible.”

To keep this in GQ, this post addresses a particular issue of Constitutional interpreation… what it means to be “eligible to the Office of President” as recited in Article II, Section 1.

First, it’s kind of a strange wording “eligible to the Office” rather than “eligible to be President” or, as stated in Article I regarding the House and Senate respectively, “No Person shall be a Representative” and “No person **shall be **a Senator.” The word “eligible” is only used in the context of the presidency. The Twelvth Amendment further adds that “no person constitutionally ineligle to the office of the President shall be eligible that of the Vice-President.” Does it recite eligibility to be President, to be elected President, to be *sworn in *as President, or something else?

Checking Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, we note that “eligible” has three definitions. First, “Fit to be chosen; worthy of choice, preferable.” Second, “Suitable; proper; desirable.” And most relevantly, “Legally qualified to be chosen; as, a man is or is not eligible to an office.” So, we read “eligible” to mean, legally qualified to be chosen and figure that once you’ve been “chosen,” you don’t have to meet the qualifications anymore. This really only applies to the President who can, I guess… denounce citizenship or expatriate while in office and remain President? Once you’re a certain age, you can’t get go backwards. This supports the “be elected” interpreation.

With respect to the Senate, there have been a few constitutionally ineligble Senators. See U.S. Senate: Youngest Senator. In one case, the Senate determined that the age requirement for eligibility applied at the time of oath-taking, rather than the time of election or the time the term begins. This supports the “be sworn in” interpretation, however, alternative language is used (see supra) with respect to the Legislative and Executive branches.

Either way, the President needs only establish eligibility to *become *president, not to *be *President. The question then remains, can a President be removed because he/she was not a natural born citizen at the time of “choosing” (electoral college vote, I’d guess)? Probably not.

Article II, Section 4 states that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Note that “constitional ineligibility at a prior date” is not one of those listed. Thus, once you’re President, you’re President… previously eligible or not. As a caveat, someone could argue that you have to claim on some government form that you’re eligible to be President by filing the appropriate papers to run (I haven’t looked this up), or that you’ve constructively stated so, which could be construed as perjury, which might be a “high crime.”

Still, to answer the original posters question… nothing.

55

Took some doing but I found it:

Century XI, Quatrain 74

The dark man born next to the Indian Sea
He will mock the second article with the false papers
The Left will be love his words and deny the rightness of the Right
He will tax the loose change to change the change that he changed.

:stuck_out_tongue:

56

I’d say the American public would think here is another president tht went senile during their term in office.

57

You cannot unscramble an egg and you could not undo 8 years of a presdency and any attempt to do so would be insane. Everything would stand.

Suppose John Robert had not readministered the oath. Would that make Obama any less president. In fact, no one considers that any act he carried out on that first day in office to be invalid.

58

Thanks all, for your patience and excellent insight.

Very Clintonesque if you ask me.

Well-played.

59

[Moderator Note]

Please refrain from political jabs in GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

60

I’m pretty sure that he could be charged with fraud under any one of a dozen Federal stautes if he claimed to be elible but knew he wasn’t.