Posted: 11/6/2009 11:17:18 AM EDT
|
I posted this earlier in General Discussion with virtually no response so I thought it might be better to ask the question here: If it were determined by the courts that Obama is in fact ineligible to serve as POTUS, what exactly would happen? Would it be a simple matter of having the VP take over to serve out the remainder of the term? Would there be another election, since the results of the first would be the result of fraud? What would happen? |
|
Quoted:
I posted this earlier in General Discussion with virtually no response so I thought it might be better to ask the question here: If it were determined by the courts that Obama is in fact ineligible to serve as POTUS, what exactly would happen? Would it be a simple matter of having the VP take over to serve out the remainder of the term? Would there be another election, since the results of the first would be the result of fraud? What would happen? The Federal Judge that recently dismissed an eligibility lawsuit said that his court has no jurisdiction over the issue because it's Congress that deals with the removal of a President, NOT the courts. Constitutionally, upon the death or resignation of a President (or temporarily transferring power, like when one's under general anasthesia), you go down the line of succession. It seems perfectly reasonable that if a President is impeached and removed by Congress, the same rules would apply. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I posted this earlier in General Discussion with virtually no response so I thought it might be better to ask the question here: If it were determined by the courts that Obama is in fact ineligible to serve as POTUS, what exactly would happen? Would it be a simple matter of having the VP take over to serve out the remainder of the term? Would there be another election, since the results of the first would be the result of fraud? What would happen? The Federal Judge that recently dismissed an eligibility lawsuit said that his court has no jurisdiction over the issue because it's Congress that deals with the removal of a President, NOT the courts. Constitutionally, upon the death or resignation of a President (or temporarily transferring power, like when one's under general anasthesia), you go down the line of succession. It seems perfectly reasonable that if a President is impeached and removed by Congress, the same rules would apply. So conceivably you could have a situation where a sitting POTUS deemed constitutionally ineligible to serve as POTUS––––- would actually continue to serve until a formal impeachment proceeding is completed? |
|
Quoted:
Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on articles charging perjury (specifically, lying to a federal grand jury) by a 228–206 vote, and obstruction of justice by a 221–212 vote and served the remainder of his term. You missed quoting the next part of that WIKIPEDIA article... The Senate fell short of the necessary 2/3 needed to remove him from office. Impeachment |
|
Quoted:
Impeached becaused he lied but kept his job cause it was a "little" lie. The size of his lie had nothing to do with it. You don't understand what impeached means. It means accused. Since everyone cites Wikipedia: Impeachment is a formal process in which an elected official is accused of unlawful activity, and which may or may not lead to the removal of that official from office. It is the first of two stages. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he was removed.
In short, Clinton was impeached (ie. charged, indicted), but was not removed (ie. not guilty) because there were not enough votes in favor of removing him from office. |
|
Quoted:
Impeached becaused he lied but kept his job cause it was a "little" lie. Posted by DogtownDog: The size of his lie had nothing to do with it. You don't understand what impeached means. It means accused. Since everyone cites Wikipedia: Judas Priest, it was a joke already. He was caught lying just not enough votes to remove him from office. Nothing worse than Wikipedia police except the Dupe police. Apparently, lying about getting your dick sucked isn't enough of a crime to loose the presidency. |