I’m talking about the point at which the truth of the person’s ineligibility has become a known fact. For the purposes of the hypothetical, let’s say that after the person os elected, new facts come out and the fraud holding office admits that he is only 30 years old.
Possibly, but I’d disfavor that idea. If the Presidency is a fraud due to ineligibility, then the fraud and his running mate never was elected to the office. But this might be the best solution, especially in the short term.
That’s the question! And I don’t really know the answer, as we do not have a mechanism in place. But what is not at question, according to the Constitution, is that the person cannot be the President. Any legislation he’d sign would hold as much weight as if you pr I signed it.
If the legislation was passed in Congress, and had already taken effect, then how would it stop? Would all the county and state officials in the country just spontaneously stop doing it at the same time – some of them wouldn’t disagree in what to do ? If military action had been ordered, and soldiers were fighting, then how would they be brought back?
This stuff wouldn’t just happen. There would be mass confusion, and thus the need for some sort of decisive action like impeachment to make things clear. And perhaps the legislation could be re-passed, and re-signed by the new president (old VP, most likely, assuming he/she was eligible – since he/she was actually legitimately elected even if the running mate was not), assuming it was popular – otherwise it could be repealed (whether necessary or not, to eliminate confusion).
But nothing just happens – there has to be a process, and it seems most likely to me that the process would be impeachment.
That’s what I;'m trying to explore: what should be done. Again, IF it comes to light that the person is ineligible, let’s say that after the election he admits to being 30 years old, how do we remedy it. I don’t think the procedure of impeachment is apt because the person is not the President. He does not have a valid claim to the office, so impeachment is not really appropriate. In fact, it validates his claim to the office.
Impeachment is a political exercise. What we need is a purely legal one. What would be done if Scarface was in the Oval Office? We wouldn’t impeach him, guys with guns would go remove him.
But let’s say Scarface was to be impeached. He gets impeached and the vote goes to the Senate. And they, for whatever reason vote to not remove him from the office. Now we’re even deeper into Bizarro Land. The problem, again, is that you’d be using a political mechanism when you need a cleanly legal one.
Is it possible that a simple American citizen could bring suit against the person sitting in the office for fraud? I don’t know. But I think the best solution would be super-quick. Right now, if Scarface was sitting in Oval Office, does the SS or FBI have to wait for an order to remove him?
I get that, but the problem is, what if the fraud is impeached, but the Senate does not vote him out of office? So that really can’t be the solution. Unless there is a way to circumvent the possibility that the Senate, for political reasons, would vote to keep the fraud in office.
Then we need to amend the Constitution to account for this possibility. In your scenario, there would be incredible confusion and worse. Perhaps the Supreme Court could resolve it and declare that the president is ineligible, but that would take a lot of time.
We have by now changed the thread into one about “is there any way to get rid of a President other than impeachment” with a side helping of, as I mentioned, “is there any way to declare that he never was President to begin with”.
magellan01 if the Senate does not convict on impeachment, then you and I have to suck on President Fraud for the rest of the term.
Already as things stands, if a President-elect is for any reason unable to take office, the VP-elect takes office instead. So VP succession IS the answer. They are elected on a joint ticket but are two separate offices. You are slipping into arguing for a purely ministerial procedure for annullment of the election itself rather than for removal of an ineligible person. The Constitution does NOT contemplate that alternative and I at least don’t want it.
Summary removal from office of an elected official just because he should not be there is not even applied at the level of a county clerk in Kentucky, good luck getting that at the Federal Level.
Unconstitutional, yes, but if Congress certifies the election results there’s no mechanism for removing the fraudulent president other than impeachment.
This is the same logic that underlies sitcom episodes where the protagonists find out that their pastor wasn’t really ordained so obviously they aren’t married anymore (with wacky hijinks ensuing when they plan their big new wedding of course). When in reality your marriage doesn’t get invalidated because of a preacher’s clerical error 30 years ago.
The “substantive difference” mentioned in the thread title is that the person would not, in fact, be the POTUS.
And have nothing that he signs be valid. Again, impeachment, while it is a mechanism at our disposal, doesn’t seem to be appropriate.
The Kentucky woman is a different kettle of fish. No one denies that she is eligible to hold the office she has. The problem is that her religious convictions do not, evidently, allow her to perform the duties of the office. I’m fine with her being removed for not performing her duties. But I guess that there is no mechanism in place for that to happen quickly, or even definitively.
But I wonder if there are other analogies…people who are removed, not for performance, but due to simply being ineligible to hold the office/job.
Who, what entity, could arrest the president for fraud?
That’s just it: none. All federal law enforcement agencies are under his control. I suppose a state law enforcement agency could, but there’s no specific federal law for them to enforce on that point. However you look at it, it’s a constitutional crisis.
Interesting. So, if the president kills his wife, he can’t be arrested?
Pretty sure DC police could do that (assuming the murder was in DC). But DC police don’t (and can’t) arrest people for violations of the Constitution, from my understanding. That’s probably a good thing, if you think about it – if they had that power, then the DC police chief would have enormous national political power.
He can be arrested for a crime. Violating the Constitution is not a crime, unless there is a criminal penalty for the specific violation spelled out in an implementing statute (like 18 U.S.C. § 245, which allows prosecution for violation of civil rights mostly granted under the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments).
I get what you’re saying…I just still don’t see how finding out post hoc that someone was ineligible for the presidency, after being elected and sworn into office, makes his presidency invalid ab initio. That’s the question I think is being begged here.
.
Correct me if I am wrong - he could be indicted and convicted for crimes relating to the fraud, like forging an official document or perjury, but that would be a parallel process not relating to impeachment.
I assume the President could be arrested and charged on a felony no matter if he were in office. Supposing he were convicted and sentenced to prison, the VP could then say he could no longer fulfill the office of President and take over. I can’t believe a President could serve as President from prison.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re not wrong. I think it’s perfectly fair to say that a POTUS who was in prison would be “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” as contemplated by the 25th Amendment. It’s the VP and a majority of the cabinet who have to make that declaration, for the record.
De facto officer doctrine (see, e.g., Ryder v. United States):
Any legislation he signed under color of official title holds just as much weight as if George Washington himself signed it. The birther fantasy that getting Obama impeached somehow undoes the actions of his presidency is just that: a fantasy bearing no relationship to reality.
Three US Senators (John Clay, Armistead Mason, and John Eaton) all were sworn in before reaching the constitutionally required age of 30. None of the legislation passed while they were in office has ever been challenged. Basically, the Senate decided to either look the other way or never noticed.
I agree with others in the thread, once elected by the Electoral College and confirmed by the legislature that person is the President no matter what is discovered after the fact. After that point, we have legal ways to remove a sitting President and that would be the only way to proceed.