This is just one of those hypothetical scenarios, like something in a John Grisham book, with absolutely no connection to anyone in real life, of course.
But, just for the sake of argument, what would happen if someone won election to a position he couldn’t legally hold?
Say, President of the United States.
When would legal measures catch up with him?
As far as we can tell, nothing could stop someone from running for president if he was constitutionally unable to hold the position because of, just say, a sticky situation involving whether or not he was a “natural born US citizen” versus a “naturalized US citizen”.
Who would come forward and stop such a person from running for president? There doesn’t seem to be a government agency that could interfere in the presidential primaries, because while the Obama campaign was engaged in deliberate voter fraud and intimidation in the caucuses, in particular, we were repeatedly told that “voter fraud” in Democratic primaries and caucuses didn’t legally exist because party primaries and caucuses are not covered by election law. They are at the parties’ discretion, governed by party rules, not by federal legislation.
But, is there a mechanism that would catch a Constitutional crisis in the making before someone who has won his party’s nomination could appear on the ballots for the presidential election?
Is there a government agency with oversight over who appears on the presidential ballots – an agency that would determine, 100%, once and for all that all the candidates on the ballot can, in fact, legally take the Oath of Office and serve as President?
It doesn’t appear that there is such oversight.
Is there any government agency that can force a presidential candidate, or a president-elect, to produce his vault copy birth certificate to prove he is, indeed, a “natural born US citizen”?
There doesn’t appear to be any way to do this, or any agency that can, in fact, do it.
Does the Supreme Court have any interest or ability to intercede to defend the Constitution and ensure the person preparing to take the Oath of Office is indeed eligible to do so?
It’s all very interesting, from a hypothetical viewpoint, because what happens if someone who is not a natural born US citizen (and is instead just a naturalized US citizen) becomes President of the United States?
Wouldn’t that set a precedent that could allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president in 2012?
Schwarzenegger is a naturalized US citizen, but was not born a US citizen because his parents did not automatically extend US citizenship to him at birth (because he was born in Austria to parents who did not have the legal ability to extend American citizenship to him at birth). If another man is ever shown to have been sworn in as POTUS who was also not a natural born US citizen, then Schwarzenegger can cite this precedent for his own eligibility claim.
Hypothetically speaking, a baby born in the 50s. 60s, and even 70s, even if born on US soil, would not have automatically been a “natural born” US citizen. That’s not how the citizenship laws, as we understand them, worked back then. If a child had a father who was a citizen of another country, that means the father could not have passed US citizenship to the son automatically. If the child’s mother was very young, she could not have passed US citizenship to the son automatically, either, because a parent had to have lived in the United States for at least 5 years after the age of 16 to automatically make a child a “natural born US citizen”.
For argument’s sake, purely in the hypothetical, if a foreign citizen of any age and an American citizen who was only 18 in 1961 had a baby, that baby would not have been recorded as a “natural born US citizen” because the mother, at 18, would not have fulfilled the requirement of “living in the US at least 5 years after the age of 16″. The mother would have needed to be 21 for her child to be natural born. Instead, the child would be considered “naturalized”.
Now, in a John Grisham novel, two things could happen:
(1) There could be a last-minute challenge in the Supreme Court to the President-Elect’s eligibility to hold the highest office in the land, with a Constitutional crisis ensuing, especially if the President-Elect continued to refuse release of his orginal vault-copy birth certificate because of whatever he’s hiding on it.
or
(2) The opposition party could allow a man who’s Constitutionally ineligible for the presidency to take the Oath of Office to set a precedent that could benefit them in 4 years, with a celebrity phenomenon candidate of their own suddenly made viable because of this “natural born” versus “naturalized” citizen catch instantly becoming irrelevent.
That not only makes Schwarzenegger presidential material, but it also gives the Democrats Jennifer Granholm as a potential POTUS, or at least VP, down the line (she’s also a naturalized US citizen, born in Canada). True, Granholm’s stock looked a lot better 4 years ago, when she would have been a good VP pick for Kerry, if that nagging “naturalized” citizen bit didn’t get in her way.
In Grisham novels, there is always some huge dam about to break, straining with all its might to hold back some colossal secret. By the end of his books, you usually forget who the “good” and “bad” guys even are anymore, and you realize the twists and turns of the story were so Byzantine and numerous that you end up somewhere you never expected to be originally.
In the end, most characters are royally screwed, while one or two miraculously seem to get exactly what they wanted all along.
Because they were smarter than the rest of us.
But, that’s just in books and has no bearing whatsoever on real life.
But we do still wonder, and no one has ever articulated a decent answer to the question, who exactly is responsible for ensuring the person elected president can actually, Constitutionally, assume the highest office in the land?
What’s the policy and procedure for this, and where is that recorded in federal statute?

November 25, 2008 at 4:24 pm
you never cease to amaze me.
November 25, 2008 at 4:45 pm
It would be presumptuous to assume the democrats would retain the presidency and install Joe Biden.
I think the Republicans would be entitled to the presidency. That would be the only way to teach both parties that they can’t put forward a candidate that is actually ineligible.
I see it the way the Olympics see it. If the winner is found to have violated an agreed upon rule or guideline, they are disqualified and the second place finisher gets the gold medal. In this case that would be John McCain and Sarah Palin.
However, would any judge or set of judges really do that?
http://www.DailyPUMA.com
November 25, 2008 at 5:03 pm
The issue should have been raised last year. No judges today would dare enforce the laws. It is too late in the game to do anything now.
November 25, 2008 at 5:11 pm
What are the citizenship laws today? Would a child born under those circumstances today be a natural born citizen? If so, it seems like more of technicality than a constitutional crises and one that could be grandfathered to make the person eligible. If, hypothetically, the child was instead born outside of US soil…. well, that’s a different story.
November 25, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Should probably be the Supreme court, but they’ll let it slide, since they need to make up for 2000. Happens all the time in sports. Ref makes a bad call favoring one side, he’ll make a questionable call favoring the other team later in the game, to balance things out. At the level of the Federal Government though, it’s a real FU to the Constitution.
November 25, 2008 at 5:59 pm
jd Says:
November 25, 2008 at 5:03 pm
The issue should have been raised last year.
—–
By whom? The media? He got a complete pass. This candidate was completely unvetted.
November 25, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I have been following this case for a long time and it wasn’t until now that something hit me. The Supreme Court would only have to declare the statute unconstitutional. It deprives women of equal justice because a male that fathers a child has that child counted as a NBC, regardless of his age and where he has lived for the last fire years. Of course, the court would not have to deal with whether the law would be constitutional even if it were gender neutral.
November 25, 2008 at 6:41 pm
http://www.poorrichardsalmanac.biz
SARAH TO CAMPAIGN IN GEORGIA FOR SAXBY CHANBLISS!
November 25, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Let us wake up everyone.
Natural Born Citizen per the Constitution has ALWAYS MEANT
1. Both parents are citizens at birth of baby.
2. Baby is born on USA soil.
Obama misses on 1
McCain misses on 2
Since both must be met, both 1 and 2 are just as important.
All laws that define NBC in another way are unConstitutional.
saying that a us mother and a foreign father could have a NBC under any formula is unConstitutional.
The Constitution defines NBC as
1. Both parents are citizens at birth of baby.
2. Baby is born on USA soil.
NOTING ELSE IS ACCEPTABLE. the founding fathers knew and saw the danger in bending the above 2 rules. no bend. no reason. Nobama and NoMcCain. Sorry John.
I see no problem with strict enforcement of the rules. In fact I would make the rules more strict. After all to be king you must be the first born male. not first born female or the 2nd born male. so out of a country of 100 million people One and ONLY One male baby meets the rule. So I strongly favor strong rule for our President.
November 25, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I live in a fantasy land where the law is the law and someone somewhere eventually does the right thing.
November 25, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I’ll take a Palin/Arnold ticket in 2012. Now that would be exciting.
November 25, 2008 at 7:33 pm
http://www.poorrichardsalmanac.biz
THIS VIDEO JUST IN!
ANALYSIS PROVES OBAMA COLB A FAKE
November 25, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Nice metaphor. Although I think this hypothetical situation is more The Screwtape Letters kind.
November 25, 2008 at 8:03 pm
With Thomas, Scalia, Alioto, and Roberts they should get at least four to move it through conference. If that alone happens, then it will get press. The bigger monkey to wrestle will be the entire court. Then of course Kennedy becomes the swing vote. The question then will be, ‘does the constitution allow them an out to pass on adjudication?’
November 25, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Well look at it this way, at least America is not racist because they just selected by popular vote on November 4, 2008 a BIRACIAL ILLEGAL ALIEN.
November 25, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Great writing as always….. good job! How sad the whole thing really is, and unsettling as well. What is also unsettling is your mention of Jennifer Granholm, or “Jenny from the block” as we call her in Michigan….YUCK, just the thought of her moving up in the ranks of anything makes me sick to my stomach…..Obama seems to have an uncanny political interest in her. How sad for the country to possibly pluck her from MI and share the misery we have come to know……..I’m sorry….
November 25, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Found a little girl-power story you all might like.
Did One Woman in Virginia Just Bring Down The Somali Pirates?
http://patriotroom.com/did-one-woman-in-virginia-just-bring-down-the-somali-pirates/
November 25, 2008 at 8:58 pm
There is a precedent of sorts.
There have been times in the last 2000 years when a false pope reigned in Rome. It is known as Sedevacantism, the throne of Peter is vacant.
In this case, it would be proper to say that the White House was vacant.
November 25, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Your hypothetical is deadly serious. We’ve either got a constitution or we don’t. Without a constitution we have no rule of law. Without a constitution we live in a land where a few elites determine which rules apply and which ones do not. They can apply the law to you while exampting themselves. Who wants to live in a state where the law is perpetually arbitrary? How can businesses operate in that environment? That’s how banana republics operate. If we aren’t going to uphold what the constitution says on this issue, then why bother with little things like checks and balances or the 1st, 2nd and 14th Amendments?
This has nothing to do with Obama’s race, party, or ideas. This is about us. For without a constitution, we no longer have a country.
November 25, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Those who are Democrats need to pay attention.
If it turns out to be true that Obama is ineligible, this will destroy the Democratic party for decades.
Why? Because it is the PARTY’S responsibility to vet their candidates eligibility.
Isn’t it funny that Howard Dean is stepping down as Chairman?
He knows.
Isn’t it funny that Hillary backed off Obama?
She knows.
Isn’t it funny that Polosi put BIG money into a Wind Farm that will only be viable if Obama wins. Back in APRIL.
She knows.
If Obama goes down, the Democratic Party goes down. There will be 3-4 years of criminal cases and each one will spawn another conspiracy crime case. It will go on forever and everyone from Dean to ACORN will be in the spotlight.
And the rest of us wonders why the Dems hate ANYONE to even talk of this?
Well, there’s your answer.
I have seen NO actual legal recourse on WHO will be President if Obama is found to be a fraud. Hopefully BEFORE Jan 20.
The Democratic Party will be implicated and a Dem will not be a constitutional shoo in. American voters do not vote party, but person. Did any one see “Democratic Party” as the candidate on the ballot? I didn’t. And the Congress cannot be a valid mediator as it is one Party controlled. Lawsuits for years over that recourse.
McCain didn’t win, so constitutionally, he’s not a shoo in, either. Even if he IS eligible.
So what’s next, a new Election? Then it will have to be pushed forward a year.
4 more years of Bush? Martial Law? ETC?
Who knows. There is NO Constitutional policy that I can find that addresses it.
If Obama goes down, that’s a $600 Million fraud case AND ALL the DNC contributions for the entire campaign.
I am a Conservative, not a Republican. McCain scares me ALMOST as much as Obama. Time to move to Australia.
November 25, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I hate to burst some bubbles but COME ON!
Do any of you really believe this will stop Obsama from the White House?
November 25, 2008 at 11:11 pm
John McCain was the child of an American
serviceman sent by our country to serve abroad. If he is not an natural born citizen then there are a huge number of children born to parents in the military that are also in that situation. I have seven cousins whose father was career military and none of them were born in the United States. Their natural born citizenship has never been questioned. Obama has a foreign father and has refused to present his actual birth certificate nor will he release any records showing what citizenship he used to apply for college. He will not show us his
passport…..what is he hiding? When McCain
was asked the same questions, he produced all the relevant information. Why was one
candidate made to produce this and another
allowed a pass on it?
November 26, 2008 at 12:37 am
Does the Supreme Court have any interest or ability to intercede to defend the Constitution and ensure the person preparing to take the Oath of Office is indeed eligible to do so?
My answer is NO. The Supreme Court stepped into the fray in 2000 despite their not having a legitimate purpose in the case. The Constitution CLEARLY states that ALL disputes involving the election of the President are ultimately to be resolved by the US House of Representatives.
The Court ruled that there was insufficient time for a full recount of Florida to be completed before the Electoral College would meet. Why? The Electoral College didn’t meet until mid-December of 2000; the Court’s decision was made less than 2 weeks after Election Day. By my count, that left at least 3 weeks for a recount. Even barring an incomplete recount being done in time for the Electoral College’s meeting, there are still legal methods that should have been followed (in addition to the above-mentioned resolution by the House of Representatives, per Title 3, Chapter 1 of the US Code, Florida’s legislature could have directed the way the State’s Electors would vote).
Flat out, those so-called “original intent” adherents on the Supreme Court should have turned away the challenge instead of being the “activists” they so often deride and denounce.
November 26, 2008 at 1:15 am
To Researcher on Obama:
I’d love to know where you get your “absolute” information. According to the Constitution, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Nowhere in that entire clause is there a DEFINITION of “natural born Citizen” such as you state. There’s nothing there about “both parents are citizens” nor is there anything about “born on USA soil”. The fact IS that the definition of “natural born citizen” has been put in the US Code (the OTHER set of laws that govern this country but aren’t as well known outside of legal circles) and that definition has been modified several times in just the past century.
See one of the problems is does a TERRITORY count as “USA soil”? Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, American Samoans are all considered to be “Americans” but none of them are eligible to vote for the President (they do, however, have a say in who becomes the parties’ nominees) and, while they all use the US dollar as their currency and are all subject to US laws (including the Constitution), no child born in any of those lands can be President as our understanding of “citizenship” now stands. Even though almost every resident of those three territories would consider themselves to be “Americans”, their status as “citizens” is very loosely defined. But, look back at US history. Andrew Jackson’s very birthplace is unknown with several places in both South Carolina and North Carolina claiming to be his birthplace–part of the confusion stems from the fact that a number of historians believe that he was born at sea to an immigrant mother. The problem, though, is that Jackson became an automatic US citizen when the US declared its independence (historians place his actual date of birth anywhere from 1755 to 1773; the latter date is highly suspect since he did participate in fighting during the Revolutionary War), and while many of his opponents tried to pull the “birth at sea, therefore not eligible” ploy but, as a technicality, only 1 of our first 9 Presidents would have qualified to be President based on their BIRTH. (Van Buren–Pres #8–was the first to have been born after the Declaration of Independence. John Tyler–Pres #10–was the first to have been born during the Constitution’s ratification process. For the others, they had to have had their citizenship transferred from British subjects to American citizens, but NONE were “natural-born” under the strictest definition.) We’ve never had to worry about the “territory” aspect as all Presidents since Tyler were born in areas that were already full States of the US (as opposed to divisions like “The Northwest Territory” or the “Dakota Territory”). (There were some still unresolved questions about Hawai’i’s actual status. When the Kingdom was overthrown and the Republic of Hawaii then applied to become a US territory, that was a technical violation of accepted international law. When the Territory finally became a full State, most people had forgotten the questionable manner that made Hawai’i US territory and so nothing was done to put an end to the questions. The question of Hawai’i’s legal status as a US State only became of interest to some bloggers who opposed Obama since his official place of birth is listed as Hawai’i. Since he was born after Statehood, the bloggers were ridiculed for their questions but the big question was never resolved: If someone is born in a State that came about as a result of a potentially illegal annexation of sovereign territory, can the people of that State be considered American citizens no matter how much time has passed? When Yugoslavia began breaking up, a number of Americans moved to their “ancestral” homelands and became involved in local politics, with a number even running for national office, even though most hadn’t been there for more than a few years or even months.)
November 26, 2008 at 1:39 am
http://www.poorrichardsalmanac.biz
ITS HERE! “BLACK FRIDAY”
FIRST ADS HERE!
STAND IN LINE! JOIN THE REST OF US!
November 26, 2008 at 1:58 am
Give it up! BO is in with the blessing of the press, the left, ACORN, and all of the George Sorros money!
Something has gone terribly wrong with this nation.
November 26, 2008 at 3:20 am
Congress is the only body that can impeach the president, and I believe federal law allows them to impeach the president-elect also. The Supreme Court wouldn’t touch it unless Congress brought the suit (but like i said, they wouldn’t have to because they can just impeach)
Keep in mind that you don’t actually choose the president of the US. You vote for the set of people that are going to choose the president of the US. Being that the electoral college is a federal institution, I’m certain no state could challenge the elector’s decision, nor could any voters.
or what JozefAL said.
November 26, 2008 at 10:28 am
Yes indeed..something has gone horribily wrong with this country.I thought it was bad when bush would not produce his military information…makes me realize that didn’t amount to too much. Now we can’t trust a birth certificate…and the person about to enter the White House doesn’t give a sh##. Makes me admire him so much.
November 26, 2008 at 1:10 pm
If you care to sign…
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550
November 26, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Bwahahaha!
You wingnuts are still going on about the birth certificate?
I hate to tell you, but officials in the state of Hawaii verified that he was born there: http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news
But no, that can’t be right, because internet wackos have “proved” that the birth certificate is fake. Who are you going to believe — government officials who have no reason to cover anything up, or a conspiracy theorist nutjob who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job?
November 27, 2008 at 5:10 pm
It doesn’t matter if he WAS born here. The issue in the Donofrio case is that Obama was born a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948–because his father (Barack Obama SR.) was a British citizen of Kenya.
If he WAS born here, he had least had dual citizenship, which is not a “natural born citizen” as framed by the constitution.
November 30, 2008 at 6:18 am
Leo Donofrio has provided an open and shut case for the court to act upon. It is pretty simple really: The Founders of the Constitution and the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment considered a Natural Born Citizen a child born to parents who were both Citizens of the United States, naturalized or Native born who owed their allegiance and were under only the jurisdiction of the USA.
Obama played the American People and I believe the SC will cut him off at the knees. There will be turmoil, but I expect a delayed announcement while troops take positions around the largest cities. Martial Law will be the rule of the land for an extended period.
The question is……….are the conspirators guilty of Treason. It might be time to do a prisoner exchange at Gitmo.
November 30, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Several past presidents had a foreign-born parent. The identity and history of President-elect Obama’s father have been well known for years. No one has suggested that this would raise an impediment to his serving as president. Whatever the law or precedent, and may be numerous conflicting and relevant legal grounds, the Supreme Court is not going to disqualify a candidate on this basis.
December 5, 2008 at 12:03 pm
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Somali pirates hijacked a supertanker hundreds of miles off the Horn of Africa, seizing the Saudi-owned ship loaded with crude and its 25-member crew, the U.S. Navy said Monday. It appeared to be