# What substantive difference would it make if Obama had been born in Kenya? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2015, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176 "2015-09-14T03:50:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/121 "2015-09-15T21:21:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I the hypothetical, the person in question never was, in fact, President, as per the constitution. In that case, George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were never president. They hadn’t been resident for 14 years in the United States prior to their respective elections (Jefferson is arguable, since he had been a resident for 14 years in his lifetime, just not consecutive years). ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/122 "2015-09-15T21:25:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > They would be removing someone who has no legitimate claim to the office. But who gives them the order? What if two generals (or two FBI bigwigs) disagree about what to do – would guns be drawn on each other? I served in the military – I think it’s very likely that I would have considered an order by my superior to take the president into custody, even if there were evidence he wasn’t really the president, an unlawful order, unless the president was attempting his own sort of coup to oppose an impeachment or something. It’s likely some other officers and soldiers would have similar doubts – unlawful orders absolutely must not and cannot be followed. How does this work? How do all the soldiers/FBI agents/etc. just happen to be on the same page with each other? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/123 "2015-09-15T21:27:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I fully understand this point, but it suffers from the problem of logic, i.e., someone who does not meet the qualifications in the Constitution canNOT be President. I agree that we are left without a mechanism to handle this and that impeachment might be the best we can do. But that, too, is problematic as it gives legitimacy to the fraud that was perpetrated. First, why do you feel that it gives it legitimacy? And second, why does that matter if the end result is it removes that person from office? You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face! ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/124 "2015-09-15T21:30:07Z")
A lack of a mechanism may well give such a false-president’s achievements legitimacy of a sort, but how is that better than a bunch of FBI agents or military officers getting together on their own and arresting people by force without due process? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/125 "2015-09-15T21:30:11Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > That’s where you’re wrong. There is a presidency and here’s why: > > For highly political and important positions, especially of elected officials, removal of them must follow a very rigorous procedure even if the person is illegitimate. That has to happen because of one main reason: Legitimacy I don’t see why that should apply to someone who holds the office illegitimately. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Without a transparent procedure, there is too great a chance that an elected official can be removed due to improper political favoritism; abuse can and will occur, and the system breaks down as a result. It is MORE important that we allow the law to follow its correct course rather than take an easier and possibly more emotionally satisfying result like kicking the guy out on his ass with a big boot. Because elections and government is only legitimate so long as the people agree to be bound by its rules, when violations occur, people want to see that the rules are followed even more strictly rather than bend or break them for a photo op. Yes, we agree to be bound by the rules in the Constitution. And the constitution says the guy is NOT the President. The guy is not, was not, and cannot be President based on the qualifications layer out in the Constitution. Now the problem, I agree, is that we don’t have a clear set of rules for that. But I’d prefer to treat the guy as a fraud, a conman, rather than someone who actually hold the office and needs to be impeached. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think I know how you feel in a hypothetical illegitimate president because I feel the same way about Bush. You want to be able to say that if the i’s are dotted and the t’s aren’t crossed, the application is illegitimate and so is everything that person has done. Its tempting to go that route because you probably don’t want to reward some scofflaw by upholding work he produced, and you don’t want to encourage others to do the same. You want to totally remove him from the process and forget about the years he’s been president, roll back the clock to before the inauguration, and auto-repeal every law he’s signed with the push of a button. No. While I’m certainly no fan of Bush, that is a completely inapt comparison. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Well the real world doesn’t work like that. You cannot simply undo the work of a president that easily. Laws he signed takes shape in thousands of different ways affecting millions of people. Do you think people who, for example, have health care now because of Obamacare simply will throw up their hands and stop getting chemo, stop getting medicine, and crawl out of the hospital bed simply because Obama has been declare illegitimate? That’s not going to happen no matter how much you many think the world should work like that. In the real world, if such a thing should happen to Obama, politicians will do the tedious chore of repealing each and every provision of Obamacare one by one. They may be sued or stopped, and you can bet a federal judge simply won’t say “Well Obama was apparently illegitimate, so that means this law is to”. In the real world people will want to keep their health care and some judges might interpret the law separately from its origin. They could say, “So what if Obama was unqualified? The law was still debated on in Congress and people still voted for it”. You may not agree with that, but there will be plenty of people who do I don’t necessarily think that everything should immediately be rendered null and void. I agree that it’s not that simple. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > So you have to legitimize the process with an impeachment, there’s no way around that. Otherwise, Obama will keep walking into the Oval Office and keep signing laws, he will keep riding Air Force One, he will keep living in the White House. Who’s going to stop him, you? You could try to storm the White House with a copy of the Constitution stapled to your chest and you know what will happen? The Secret Service will shoot you. Because that’s not how you get rid of a president. You vote him out or you impeach him, or else nobody will care that he’s still doing presidential things in the president’s house. This isn’t about Obama. To make this as clean a discussion as possible, let’s say that the guy in the office is found to be 30 years old. And there is no question as to that fact. He even admits it. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Think of it this way. Kim Davis went against the SCOTUS, the law of the land, in denying marriage certificates. Rightfully, she shouldn’t be allowed to be the county clerk anymore. But she properly sued and appealed. The courts that ultimately found her guilty of contempt did not give her position any legitimacy. In fact, by hashing it out in a transparent matter, it showed how illegitimate her position really was. And as an elected official, there was only 2 ways of getting rid of her: recall or impeachment. She still works there to this day, drawing her $80000 a year salary. I may not like it, but the law is clear on how to remove her. And it is clear on how to remove an illegitimate president. You impeach him. And if there is no political will to do so, then he stays as president Davis is the legitimate County Clerk. Her beliefs prevent her from doing the job she was elected to do. So, she shouldn’t be in that job. There are clear mechanisms in place to make that happen. Even if they take more time than one would like. No such mechanism exists for the hypothetical. I understand why impeachment seems like the logical, best mechanism, but 1) impeachment is a political endeavor, not a legal one, and 2) impeachment implies the person is actually holding the office they cannot—by the Constitution and logic—hold. it give the fraudulent behavior legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/126 "2015-09-15T21:33:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, we agree to be bound by the rules in the Constitution. And the constitution says the guy is NOT the President. The guy is not, was not, and cannot be President based on the qualifications layer out in the Constitution. Now the problem, I agree, is that we don’t have a clear set of rules for that. But I’d prefer to treat the guy as a fraud, a conman, rather than someone who actually hold the office and needs to be impeached. But who does this? Who ‘treats him like a fraud’, and how? Whose orders do the military follow? Are you really okay with military officers deciding on their own when and how to use force against US citizens within our borders? What if the Secret Service (or some of them) still feel bound to protect the president – do these soldiers shoot them? Why is this better than an impeachment? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/127 "2015-09-15T21:36:36Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > First, why do you feel that it gives it legitimacy? It is a mechanism to remove someone who rightfully holds an office. It says that the completely fraudulent behavior actually overrode the Constitution and now we must use the mechanism it supplies to remove an elected official from the office they rightly hold. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > And second, why does that matter if the end result is it removes that person from office? You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face! If someone is impeached and voted to be removed, it says their tenure in the office ends as of the vote to remove from office. And that means that their tenure prior to that was intact and legitimate. We need a mechanism that deals with the illegality of being able to hold the office, not conduct for a legitimate office holder. I guess we don’t have that. But I wonder wat the obligations of the SS, FBI, Military are as far as allegiance to the office of the Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/128 "2015-09-15T21:41:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But who does this? Who ‘treats him like a fraud’, and how? Whose orders do the military follow? Are you really okay with military officers deciding on their own when and how to use force against US citizens within our borders? What if the Secret Service (or some of them) still feel bound to protect the president – do these soldiers shoot them? What would you say should happen if the President murdered his wife, and we have it on tape. When the authorities come to arrest him, do you think if the SS tries to prevent the arrest by pointing guns at the arresting officials that they should not be shot? Not me. Shoot every one of them. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why is this better than an impeachment? I’ve listed the reasons why it is. There are also reason why it is not better. But I really think that impeachment is fundamentally philosophically and morally flawed. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/129 "2015-09-15T21:43:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But who gives them the order? What if two generals (or two FBI bigwigs) disagree about what to do – would guns be drawn on each other? I served in the military – I think it’s very likely that I would have considered an order by my superior to take the president into custody, even if there were evidence he wasn’t really the president, an unlawful order, unless the president was attempting his own sort of coup to oppose an impeachment or something. It’s likely some other officers and soldiers would have similar doubts – unlawful orders absolutely must not and cannot be followed. > > How does this work? How do all the soldiers/FBI agents/etc. just happen to be on the same page with each other? I don’t know. As I mentioned, I’m wondering if there is a branch of service whose allegiance to the office and not the man. Maybe SCOTUS need to get involved and issue the order. Like I said, I’m not sure of what the best answer is. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/130 "2015-09-15T22:02:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Right now, if Scarface was sitting in Oval Office, does the SS or FBI have to wait for an order to remove him? Yes. “Right now” as you frame it, under what authority would federal LEAs act on their own initiative to remove him? Arrest him for crimes, maybe, but not strip him from the office. (Which Scarface anyway, real Capone or movie Montana? Because constitutionally, Al was a Natural Born Citizen, the fictional Tony was a known Cuban refugee so he could not run in the first place.) But say it’s an entirely unrelated Melvin Scarface that’s sitting in the WH. Well, having been elected through all the due procedures, why should his removal be summary and not involve a due process in which he can argue his case, laughable as it may be? Besides, think of this: You ask for “a legal, not political, mechanism” to not just remove a President from office, but as I said, to annull the election and the actions taken pursuant to it. A legal process.? Do you realize how long and drawn out THAT would be? If there’s the political will the House can impeach and the Senate try within days. Would you propose a legal mechanism that abides no motions for challenging standing, continuance or dismissal, change of venue, reconsideration, appeal, etc, or the judger(s) simply ruling against removal? Since it can’t be just “here’s some evidence this guy is dirty, may the Honorable Panel order the SS to kick him out!”, you are STILL going to suck on President Fraud for a good while. That it’s nigh impossible to remove a President short of finding him in a threesome with Vladimir Putin and an underage goat is not a bug, it’s a feature. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/131 "2015-09-15T22:04:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t know. As I mentioned, I’m wondering if there is a branch of service whose allegiance to the office and not the man. Maybe SCOTUS need to get involved and issue the order. Like I said, I’m not sure of what the best answer is. I’m pretty sure – the best answer is impeachment. No risk of shooting secret service agents in that case. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/132 "2015-09-15T22:05:50Z")
Meh. Assuming such a process existed, SCOTUS could exercise original jurisdiction, which limits the problems of appeals and venue selection. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/133 "2015-09-15T22:21:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > They would be removing someone who has no legitimate claim to the office. Pretty much every military coup includes an announcement that the president had no legitimate claim to the office, or at least no remaining claim. You are right back to who gets to decide whose claim is legitimate. You want that to be whoever can reach their gun first? > [@magellan01](#): > > What would you say should happen if the President murdered his wife, and we have it on tape. When the authorities come to arrest him, do you think if the SS tries to prevent the arrest by pointing guns at the arresting officials that they should not be shot? Not me. Shoot every one of them. Then the DA or prosecutor obtains an arrest warrant, and the vice-president and a majority of the cabinet get together and declare the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. At that point, the law-abiding Secret Service agents tell the guy, “you’re on your own” and walk out to take up positions around the new acting president, while the DC cops come in and haul him off to jail. No shooting involved, and entirely in accordance with the Constitution. What’s your objection to this? For that matter, if the president really did murder the First Lady, does that somehow invalidate his presidency and undo all of the laws that went before? > [@magellan01](#): > > The guy is not, was not, and cannot be President based on the qualifications layer out in the Constitution. Now the problem, I agree, is that we don’t have a clear set of rules for that. We have a nice clear set of rules for that. It’s called “impeachment.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/134 "2015-09-15T22:27:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What would you say should happen if the President murdered his wife, and we have it on tape. When the authorities come to arrest him, do you think if the SS tries to prevent the arrest by pointing guns at the arresting officials that they should not be shot? Not me. Shoot every one of them. That’s a bit different, since local law enforcement would have the clear legal authority to do so. But with no Constitutional guidance? Do you really think a Secret Service agent should be killed for not being sure what to do and defaulting to protecting the person he’s been protecting for years when men dressed like soldiers (who may or may not actually be soldiers) come for the president? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/135 "2015-09-15T23:07:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If someone is impeached and voted to be removed, it says their tenure in the office ends as of the vote to remove from office. And that means that their tenure prior to that was intact and legitimate. Even if it turns out the guy was never “really” the legitimate office holder, his actions stand. Under the de facto officer doctrine, every law he signed is still the law, every veto is still a veto, every administrative decision is still in effect, etc. Since he’s been removed from office, the history books will still have an asterisk next to his name. What, exactly, do you seek to accomplish here? > [@magellan01](#): > > We need a mechanism that deals with the illegality of being able to hold the office, not conduct for a legitimate office holder. I guess we don’t have that. But I wonder wat the obligations of the SS, FBI, Military are as far as allegiance to the office of the Presidency. Their obligations to the office also include their obligations to the rule of law and to the Constitution, and that document already provides a means to remove somebody that doesn’t involve gunfire. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/136 "2015-09-15T23:19:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Whose orders do the military follow? Are you really okay with military officers deciding on their own when and how to use force against US citizens within our borders? What could possibly go wrong with that? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/137 "2015-09-15T23:22:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We need a mechanism that deals with the illegality of being able to hold the office, not conduct for a legitimate office holder. I guess we don’t have that. But I wonder wat the obligations of the SS, FBI, Military are as far as allegiance to the office of the Presidency. > [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t see why that should apply to someone who holds the office illegitimately. Apologies, but I’m going to respond to your posts out of order because I think this is where the root of the misunderstanding comes from. I don’t think that we have in place, at least in the Constitution, a way of actually removing an illegitimate president. Impeachment doesn’t spell it out, but its for the removal of a president, assumed to be legitimate. Nothing I know of says something to the effect of “If the president is not legitimate, go ahead and just grab him by the cuff of his collar and toss him in jail”. There is no procedure for that. So failing that, you have problem: either use legitimate means to remove him, or do so through a different method. Most people, would care more about the result of removing the man rather than the process used to do so. You want it both ways and I don’t think you can have it both ways. You ask about the obligations of government agencies but those agencies assume that the president is legitimate. Nowhere is there written in the SS manual, for instance, “If president is not legitimate, you can give him an insulting codename like ‘Groin polyp’ and ignore every other order”. And they would not want to act first, removing a president requires enormous political will, such that the FBI or SS or even the military probably doesn’t have. You might have generals here and there expressing doubts, but you’ll never get enough people to just say their interpretation (and to be perfectly honest, it WILL come down to someone’s interpretation) of the Constitution is right and they’ll stop following orders. Herd mentality, bystander effect, mob rule, whatever you want to call it, you won’t have enough people willing to stand out to do that. The only way is for Congress to remove him > [@magellan01](#): > > It is a mechanism to remove someone who rightfully holds an office. It says that the completely fraudulent behavior actually overrode the Constitution and now we must use the mechanism it supplies to remove an elected official from the office they rightly hold. So what is the mechanism for removing an illegitimate president from power? There are none. So do you let him stay in office? Or somehow come up with a plan to remove the sitting president, pass that law, override his veto, and do all of that? Or just impeach him? > [@magellan01](#): > > If someone is impeached and voted to be removed, it says their tenure in the office ends as of the vote to remove from office. And that means that their tenure prior to that was intact and legitimate. It honestly sounds like semantics to me. Sure, you would be angry if this guy, a random guy off the street, is listed in the history books as president. But you’re swimming upstream here, people are going to consider him president for that time whether or not you like it. I’ll be blunt: what are you afraid of? What do you think will happen if President X, through nefarious means, wins the electorate but is removed a year later after an investigation, and is still listed in history books as president for that year? Are you afraid it tells people the wrong message, that cheaters can win sometimes? Well, they do, plenty of people cheat and get away with it, or cheat and are never punished. A false president’s not going to change the human nature to want to cheat to get ahead. > [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, we agree to be bound by the rules in the Constitution. And the constitution says the guy is NOT the President. The guy is not, was not, and cannot be President based on the qualifications layer out in the Constitution. Now the problem, I agree, is that we don’t have a clear set of rules for that. But I’d prefer to treat the guy as a fraud, a conman, rather than someone who actually hold the office and needs to be impeached. The Constitution is a piece of paper. It cannot enforce, only advise. I agree 100% that the Constitution says so-and-so cannot be president, ever. But if he were elected, took on power, made decisions, the Constitution is not going to do anything about it. Its people who will do something about it, and you’re advocating creating some new way of enforcing something the Constitution never addressed. That’s more problematic than if you did follow Constitutional procedures of impeachment > [@magellan01](#): > > No. While I’m certainly no fan of Bush, that is a completely inapt comparison. That’s funny because this is germane to our discussion. I think he’s illegitimate, you don’t. What if I and a million people like me wanted him gone in 2003? What if we did as you suggested and just had police and federal agents who supported our cause try to physically arrest him? What if half or more of the country believed as we did? Then you’d pray for impeachment because he can at least lay out a defense. > [@magellan01](#): > > This isn’t about Obama. To make this as clean a discussion as possible, let’s say that the guy in the office is found to be 30 years old. And there is no question as to that fact. He even admits it. That’s fine, I use him as an easy example since many conservative do question his legitimacy. But the examples I gave still works. This person will still be in office, eating White House food, signing White House documents. What then? Screaming that he’s illegitimate does nothing unless he’s physically removed. How do you do that in a legal way? > [@magellan01](#): > > Davis is the legitimate County Clerk. Her beliefs prevent her from doing the job she was elected to do. So, she shouldn’t be in that job. There are clear mechanisms in place to make that happen. Even if they take more time than one would like. No such mechanism exists for the hypothetical. I understand why impeachment seems like the logical, best mechanism, but 1) impeachment is a political endeavor, not a legal one, and 2) impeachment implies the person is actually holding the office they cannot—by the Constitution and logic—hold. it give the fraudulent behavior legitimacy. Like you admit, no mechanism exists for the hypothetical. Creating a new process with a president fighting you is much harder. Its easier and faster to just impeach him. And all of this will be highly political with legality probably taking a back seat. What do you do then if the political will doesn’t exist to impeach the 30 year old president? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/138 "2015-09-15T23:44:13Z")
Something interesting along these lines did happen in the last days of Richard Nixon’s presidency. An order went out to the military, explaining that they could refuse to accept his orders as commander in chief. The reason was the fear – extremely unlikely! – that, in desperation, Nixon might call upon the military to protect him from impeachment and ouster, or to arrest Congress (never!) or even to launch a world-ending nuclear strike against the USSR. So, in effect, an extra-legal, unconstitutional action was taken to circumscribe Nixon’s power as President. This almost certainly would not be how Obama would be dealt with if his nationality at birth were discovered to be Kenyan. But it is a note that gives some vague support to **magellan01** ’s idea of a response other than impeachment. Richard Nixon was responded to by means other than impeachment…but only because impeachment (and conviction) were almost certain at that point. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/139 "2015-09-16T00:18:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > We need a mechanism that deals with the illegality of being able to hold the office, not conduct for a legitimate office holder. I guess we don’t have that. It’s called contested primary and general elections, opposition research, due dilligence by party donors and officials, and muckraking journalism. If he got a fast one past \*all that \*as far as making it into office, and we only find out afterwards, then be it impeachment or whatever the method, the process until we meet a standard of proof the dude is not legally qualified and should be out of there, is NOT going to be fast. He will be presiding for a while no matter what. (Oh, and the example of a sitting POTUS caught murdering his wife… well, that does not ipso facto _legally disqualify_ you. Until the VP and Cabinet declare him unable to perform his duties and take over, he remains in charge, and thereafter under the 25th amendment the VP becomes _ **acting** _ President until President Spector is formally stripped of office.) BTW the “de facto official” principle ISTM would work _in favor_ of garnering the necessary votes to \*remove \*President Fraud from office by assuring the Senators that they would not be undoing \*\*\*everything \*\*\*that happened in the intervening time and that if anything needs undoing it will be voted on again. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2015, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176/140 "2015-09-17T22:57:37Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Why does it substantively matter? I’m aware the Constitution would make him ineligible to be president if this were both true and proof of it being true could be dug up. Nevertheless, what pertinent reason is there to complain? To many citizens, the Constitution is directly tied in with the office of the President. Reasons to complain?? I suppose that if the Constitution were to define say the eligibility, as well as the function and the office of the President, those who value the Constitution may be able to conjure up some reasons to complain. Haters gonna hate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-substantive-difference-would-it-make-if-obama-had-been-born-in-kenya/731176.md?page=8)