No. A sitting POTUS can be removed only be Congress via impeachment (and only for “high crimes and misdemeanors”), or by a majority of the Cabinet via a declaration that he is incapable of carrying out his duties. The latter only applies to an incapacitated (or crazy, presumably) POTUS anyway. In theory, a presidential candidate could be removed from the ballot by a court, but it’s virtually impossible.
And her real name is Stanley. So now we have gender-ID issues mixed up in all of this. 
Thank you. So if Congress is controlled by the same Party then they may choose not to impeach? Wow. Although there would likely be an electoral backlash.
Yes. And yes. The popularity of the POTUS’ party is generally tied to the popularity of the POTUS anyway, so if there was one who obvious required impeachin’ it’s unlikely they would shy away from doing so (assuming he didn’t resign).
Conversely, if Congress is controlled by a different party from the president, they may choose to impeach on less than compelling grounds. And there would likely be an electoral backlash.
But the interesting thing is (in the hypothetical), would he be considered to be President? Could he? Sure, he won the election, but he wouldn’t have met the constitutional qualifications to hold the office. So he legally, factually could not be considered to be The President of The United States. The constitution does not place any constraints on who may run for office, but it is clear on the qualifications for actually holding that office.
An additional point: maybe it would just be up to the Secret Service or some branch of the military to remove and bar him from the White House. As he would have no right to be there.
A candidate who wins a majority of electors as certified by Congress and who is sworn into office is president, deservingly or not. One useful thing we learned from the Birther fiasco is that the courts generally view the president’s qualifications as a political question. It’s up to the voters to decide whether a candidate meets them.
This is nonsense. The Secret Service and military have no remit to judge the qualifications of the POTUS or to remove him from office. They’re under his command, in fact.
Yup, the election was certified by Congress and at that point he’s president. If Congress wants, they have the ability to remove a president. You’re already in a constitutional crisis by this point, but if the courts tried to remove the president things would get ugly quickly.
What Nationality Act are you referring to specifically? Could you explain how it could exclude a hypothetically situation where Obama was born in Kenya? I’m genuinely curious since it appears that few think Cruz being born in Canada excludes him. Are you saying it’s merely a matter of the year each was born?
This is, I suspect, the right answer.
Sure, there will be some small group of people who are non-partisan who just happens to care deeply about upholding the letter of the law. But by all practical purposes, there’s no difference whether a baby first is born over one patch of ground vs. another patch of ground past an invisible line.
Even after 6 years, there are still those unwilling to admit Obama was born in the US. There was a poll of GOP voters a few weeks ago which asked who they believed was born in the US, and the choices were Obama and Ted Cruz. Most GOP voters said they thought Cruz was born in the US than Obama, by like 20%. Cruz, the guy who actually recently had Canadian citizenship and admitted being born in Canada.
By the way, off topic, but how could he run for president if he was born in Canada?
Rafael Edward Cruz’s mother was a US citizen.
Oh yeah, forgot about her. I thought it was another one of those John McCain situations
The Nationality Act of 1952, under the language that was in effect in 1961, provided that for an American spouse of a foreign national or single parent to transmit citizenship to children born outside of the US jurisdiction, the American had to have been a resident in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, which is where birthers would have docked Obama’s mother. This was later on amended to be less restrictive.
Has this particular issue ever actually been addressed in a court of law? I find it hard to imagine that the framers of the law had intended that a teenage mother would be incapable of transmitting citizenship to her child born abroad, and in all likelihood the hypothetical didn’t cross their minds at the time.
I think we’re such a partisan country that even if there were proof that a hypothetical President were ineligible to be President, there wouldn’t be a 2/3 majority to remove him or her from office.
With the laws in effect at the time, I think that an Obama born in Kenya would have not run for the Presidency. I don’t see him lying to get on the ticket & I don’t see the Democratic party letting him lie.
We’re not talking about proof of ineligibility, but proof he was born in Kenya. Being born in Kenya doesn’t automatically make one ineligible to be president – in this case, his mother’s citizenship (from what I understand) automatically makes him a US citizen.
Further, proof he was born in Kenya doesn’t mean that he knows he was born in Kenya. I don’t remember where I was born – I was told where I was born. If my parents lied to me and forged my birth certificate, that wouldn’t mean I was guilty of fraud or any other crime for assuming it was accurate.
I don’t think the framers would have thought the mother was capable of transmitting citizenship in the first place. FATHERS transmitted citizenship; Mama had whatever citizenship her husband had.
Remember, the Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act passed only in 1922; prior to that date, a female who was already a U.S. citizen (even natural-born) automatically lost her U.S. citizenship if she married a foreign national. Under the doctrine of coverture, married women had no legal existence apart from their husband
You could make the case based on the letter of the law in effect at the time of Obama’s birth and his mother’s age that his mother’s US citizenship would not automatically make him a US citizen. It would be a matter for the courts to decide most likely.
Let’s take two similar hypotheticals:
- What if we determined that John F. Kennedy was secretly born in Kenya, and his parents lied about it? He vetoed Bill 383, regarding the retirement benefits of some DC firemen. Would they have a legitimate lawsuit for back pay?
- What if we determined in February 2017 that president-elect (hurk) Donald Trump (hrrrrk) was secretly born in Kenya, and his parents lied about it?
In the first case, I don’t think that anyone would seriously argue that the vetoed bills of someone so far in the past should be reinstated. Having a law be treated as legitimate is a pretty big public policy matter, and we don’t want to throw them out on technicalities like that, I don’t think.
In the second case, I’d think that impeachment would be politically feasible, but I’m not sure it’d be supportable–and I wouldn’t support it, as much as I think Trump is a scurrilous demagogue.
People talking about impeachment: on what grounds? I think that “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” are the only grounds for impeachment. If the president provably lied about his birthplace, then that might count and criminal fraud. But if the president were relying on false information from his parents, I’m not seeing that the Constitution offers a remedy, after the fact of election.